From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 01 17:41:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 00:41:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 11272 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 23:40:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 23:40:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.170) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 23:40:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:40:01 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.60 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:40:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.60] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:40:01 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2001 23:40:01.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[4833FEB0:01C11AE3] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Yes, it's the lesser of two evils, but why are you proposing >either of two evils? Why must the second quantification be taken >as restricted? I don't know, it's not my argument. All I want is that it not be restricted to some nebulous, ill-defined "selected" set. >{da poi} can be useful for things like {ro da poi mi djuno tu'o >du'u do citka ke'a}, which won't paraphrase with {lo} and which >using a poi-less da would require {ga nai}, which is probably a >little too mabla logji for some tastes. Yes, I agree. >Anyway, if {su'o da} means {su'o da poi co'e}, how does one >express unrestricted {su'o da} (= E x)? {su'o da poi du}. We can even sidestep {da} in order to use names as bound variables: {su'o du goi la ab su'o du goi la ac}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp