Subject: Re: [lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi}

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:40:18

la and cusku di'e

> > 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.

My proposal was meant as the lesser of two evils. If the second
quantification must be taken as restricted to something then it
should be to the same set as the first, which at least is something
logically transparent, and not to some "selected" subset which
makes it hard or impossible to be consistent

>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,

It sort of would. If da is unused, then {su'o da goi la ab su'o
da goi la ac} gives you two independent variables, since the
first da is unrestricted, the second is restricted to the same
universal set of everything.

>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.

I don't know. Most of my use of {da} is without explicit poi
anyway. I wouldn't mind if my rule was simply one of implicature,
so {su'o da} means {su'o da poi co'e}. That's how it seems to work
in practice in any case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp