From cowan@ccil.org Sun Aug 19 13:22:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 20:22:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 41287 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 20:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 20:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 20:22:03 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15YZ55-0000Dk-00; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:21:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record In-Reply-To: <3e.1042e385.28b16a06@aol.com> from "pycyn@aol.com" at "Aug 19, 2001 03:14:14 pm" To: pycyn@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > 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, Actually, "ri" is sharp; only "ra" and "ru" are vague. > Are there rules about anaphora of bound variables other than repetition > within scope? In general, "ri" skips things where the meaning is the same on repetition: "ri" skips "mi" and "do" and "ko'a" and "da". But it certainly should not skip "ce'u", since repeating "ce'u" is something quite different. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan