From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 30 19:23:44 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 54015 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 02:23:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Jul 2001 02:23:43 -0000
Received: from m27-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.27] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15ROww-0000QY-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:07:59 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi}
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 03:22:56 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEOGEHAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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)
In-Reply-To: <F70tp8xth9AsMQ0qxYP0000886c@hotmail.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Jorge:
> The way I propose is very transparent: The second quantifier
> introduces a new variable just as if you had used a different da
> (say daxize) with the convenience that it remains restricted
> to the same set as the one you had been using so far, so you are
> spared from repeating the poi clause. No special new scope rule
> is required.

This has to be set against the inconvenience of the shortage of
da-series KOhA, which makes it desirable to be able to recycle
them as much as possible.

This of course was how the original thread began -- by me 
proposing [-- I'm reformulating here --] something in LAhE that
takes a cmene and yields a quantifiable variable, and assigns
the value of the variable to the cmene. You replied that {su'o 
da goi la ab" would do the job, but it won't under your proposal, 
and your proposal would make my 'LAhE-da' even more necessary, 
since you'd have to be resorting to {da xi pa} that much more 
often.

--And.

