From cowan@ccil.org Wed Jul 18 18:00:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 19 Jul 2001 01:00:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 5718 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2001 01:00:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jul 2001 01:00:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jul 2001 01:00:39 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15N2BM-0004xW-00; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:00:48 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] goi In-Reply-To: from Jorge Llambias at "Jul 18, 2001 09:51:45 pm" To: Jorge Llambias Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Jorge Llambias scripsit: > 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. IIRC when you quantify a variable that has already been bound, it is just a normal quantifier, so the second "su'o da" means "one or more of (the existing) da", not very useful. But ro da poi .... re da would mean "two of those which etc." The only way to force the effect you want is to use de or to use the cmavo, whatever it is, that clears all anaphora. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter