Re: Indirect questions

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>>>I'm not sure, but it seems that you could run into
>>>inconsistencies if {lei ci valsi cu valsi}. How would
>>>you define something that is a valsi?
>>
>>Given that the default quantifier on lei ended up as pisu'o,
>>lei ci valsi cu valsi is technically true but rather meaningless, as is
>>loi valsi cu valsi.
>
>Right, if you take it to mean {pisu'o lei ci valci cu valsi}, then I agree
>that it is true. But to me {lei ci valsi} means {piro lei ci valsi}. That's
>one of the points where I must disagree with the refgram. {piro}
>is the most useful quantifier for {lei}, and without it {lei} loses its
>very convenient property of being immune to scope-trouble.
>
>> I had wanted lei to have default of piro, buyt the
>>refgrammar ended up with pisu'o
>
>--More--
>Fortunately for me I am not as bound to the refgram as you are.
>I think usage too is on my side in this case. If people start using
>explicit {piro}s in front of {lei} then I might have to follow suit, but
>for the moment I don't see that happening, so I will continue
>using {lei} to mean {piro lei}.

Well I checked the refgram particularly because I thought that, in the
recently mentioned discussion of 2 years ago fall, YOU had convinced
Cowan
that the quantification on lei should be the same as on loi (i.e. pisu'o).
Prior to that it WAS piro , and Cowan was talked out of this by ledo'o
arguments on the nature of lei and masses.  The hostory of it being the other
way is why you undoubtedly recall usage being piro.

.oiro'e
mi'e lojbab