From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jan 31 12:52:26 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 81618 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.18) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:52:25 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.26 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25.0670 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8DF0660:01C2C96A] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.26] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >The idea that the prenex of the main bridi has scope over >subsequent sentence connectives is not daft, though, and I can't see any >obvious >or insuperable problems with it. The main problem I have with that is that it requires negation to have scope over subsequent sentence connectives as well, which to me seems extremely counterintuitive. {ro da na broda ije da brode} would mean "it is not the case that everything is both broda and brode". My preferred interpretation for that sentence is "it is not the case that everything is broda, and it is the case that something is brode". The Book does not give a clear ruling on what the scope precedence of {ro}, {na} and {je} in {ro da na broda ije da brode} is. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail