From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jul 18 15:21:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 22:21:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 93771 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 21:51:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 21:51:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.231) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 21:51:45 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:51:45 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.114 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:51:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.114] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] goi Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:51:45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2001 21:51:45.0736 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6AE7C80:01C10FD3] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >2. Jorge tells me that (or so I understood), {da goi la ab >da goi la ac} is equivalent to {da xi pa goi la ab da xi >re goi la ac}, i.e. because it assigns its value to the >goi sumti, it is bound by a different quantifier (that is, >it is a different variable). No, that's not what I used. It has to be {su'o da goi la ab su'o da goi la ac}. A bare da won't do it the second time, because it is already bound by the first quantifier, so in your example {la ab} and {la ac} refer to the same thing. But a second {su'o da} introduces a new variable, because you can't quantify a variable that has already been bound. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.