From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Jul 18 16:42:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 23:42:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 38700 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 23:41:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 23:41:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 23:41:55 -0000 Received: from m143-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.143] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15N0hy-0003I3-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:26:22 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] goi Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:41:06 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > 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. Ah: sorry. Yes of course. That was thick of me. --And.