From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 02 18:55:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 01:55:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 57446 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 01:55:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 01:55:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 01:55:16 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.16]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010803015514.LHKG20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:55:14 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:54:08 +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: > >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}. Is the idea that everything is an argument of some {du} predicate, and hence that the restriction applies vacuously? > 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}. You are egregiously, exhaustingly quickwitted. More generally, {ro du}, {lo du}, {le du}, etc. can be used to introduce sumti without saying anything about them. {le du} in particular is worth noticing, as an alternative to nonanaphoric ko'a. --And.