From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 19 12:14:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 19:14:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 78285 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 19:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 19:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 19:14:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.3e.1042e385 (18253) for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3e.1042e385.28b16a06@aol.com> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:14:14 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3e.1042e385.28b16a06_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_3e.1042e385.28b16a06_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2001 12:33:59 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > self -love is le ka ce'uxino prami ce'uxino, which might be shortened > somehow > > (to, for example, {le ka prami ce'uxino}) but probably shouldn't be. > > That's way too complicated. What's wrong with {le ka ce'u prami ri}? > I don't know; I didn't think of it. Is it legal? I don't see why not immediately. Is it generalizable? Less clear, because of the vaguenss of the {rV} series, but the {le nei} or {le no'u} (depending) series would always work. Are there rules about anaphora of bound variables other than repetition within scope? --part1_3e.1042e385.28b16a06_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/19/2001 12:33:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


self -love is le ka ce'uxino prami ce'uxino, which might be shortened
somehow
> (to, for example, {le ka prami ce'uxino}) but probably shouldn't be.

That's way too complicated. What's wrong with {le ka ce'u prami ri}?


I don't know; I didn't think of it.  Is it legal?  I don't see why not
immediately.  Is it generalizable?  Less clear, because of the vaguenss of
the {rV} series, but the {le nei} or {le no'u} (depending) series would
always work.  
Are there rules about anaphora of bound variables other than repetition
within scope? --part1_3e.1042e385.28b16a06_boundary--