If you're going to write such a cryptic definition and say "beware: usage
is tricky", we're going to need some examples.

Comment #2: Re: what

Curtis W Franks (Mon Jun 30 08:00:16 2014)

durka42 wrote: > If you're going to write such a cryptic definition and say "beware: usage > is tricky", we're going to need some examples. da has a scope that terminates with the end of a given sentence string (whereïn each sentence is joined by ijeks). Thereäfter, further use of the word may implicitly retain its previous meaning but such a case is not officially guaranteed by the grammar under the CLL ( http://lojban.github.io/cll/16/14/ ). This word (kau'i) is the third in a series which would officially guarantee the result of the aforementioned informal usage. Its scope does not terminate until made to do so by the termination of the discourse, da'o or the like, or maybe some words which close its scope explicitly (do we have words for that already?). While it is useful in the sense that one does not need to pay attention to connecting sentences, it can be problematic when one forgets that it has already been assigned a referent or when one has restricted its referent set and no longer intends for that restriction to apply (by the way, an override of such restrictions could be useful); I excluded external quantification from the extended memory of the word because I feared that it would become overly difficult to use or to understand if they transferred to all later uses (the cost is that the quantification must be made with poi-clauses or restated each time- overall, not a bad trade-off). I call it elephant di because it has a long memory.

Comment #3: Re: what

Curtis W Franks (Mon Jun 30 08:07:11 2014)

durka42 wrote: >we're going to need some examples. An example would be «kau'i poi ke'a gerku zo'u kau'i batci mi .i kau'i zvati ti» which is the same thing as what the utterance would be with formal replacement of kau'i with di if .i were to be replaced with .ije.

Comment #4: Re: what Alex Burka (Mon Jun 30 16:11:52 2014) All right, this makes some sense (and I like the elephant pun, now that it's explained). The definition could be much clearer. Also, since we already have the ko'V/fo'V series which does not forget its assignments, I'm not sure kau'[aei] adds a ton of value: I believe (please correctly me if I missed some nuance) that your example is the same as ko'i goi di poi ke'a gerku zo'u ko'i batci mi .i ko'i zvati ti. di may be lost in the next sentence but ko'i should persist until da'o. krtisfranks wrote: > durka42 wrote: > >we're going to need some examples. > > An example would be «kau'i poi ke'a gerku zo'u kau'i batci mi .i kau'i > zvati ti» which is the same thing as what the utterance would be with > formal replacement of kau'i with di if .i were to be replaced with > .ije. Comment #5: Re: what Alex Burka (Mon Jun 30 16:14:13 2014) jbovlaste mangled my response pretty badly. Here it is again. All right, this makes some sense (and I like the elephant pun, now that it's explained). The definition could be much clearer. Also, since we already have the ko'V/fo'V series which does not forget its assignments, I'm not sure kau'V adds a ton of value: I believe (please correctly me if I missed some nuance) that your example is the same as «ko'i goi di poi ke'a gerku zo'u ko'i batci mi .i ko'i zvati ti». di may be lost in the next sentence but ko'i should persist until da'o. durka42 wrote: > All right, this makes some sense (and I like the elephant pun, now that > it's explained). The definition could be much clearer. Also, since we > already have the ko'V/fo'V series which does not forget its assignments, > I'm not sure kau'[aei] adds a ton of value: I believe (please correctly me > if I missed some nuance) that your example is the same as ko'i goi di poi > ke'a gerku zo'u ko'i batci mi .i ko'i zvati ti. di may be lost in the > next sentence but ko'i should persist until da'o. > > krtisfranks wrote: > > durka42 wrote: > > >we're going to need some examples. > > > > An example would be «kau'i poi ke'a gerku zo'u kau'i batci mi .i kau'i > > zvati ti» which is the same thing as what the utterance would be with > > formal replacement of kau'i with di if .i were to be replaced with > > .ije.