does {da} refer to something?
@lorxus @djeikyb --his buddies speak on IRC. That's really not substantive and probably circular.
2013-09-03 14:46:57@lorxus @djeikyb I think there are many Lojban dialects, and I think that the claim "no da really doesn't refer" is not supported by --
2013-09-03 14:48:35@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb mi bazi tavla fi la'e zoi url http://t.co/BcUSaO3qZO url (You will see the whole page by clicking on "残りを読む".)
2013-09-04 02:49:03@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb la_tsani's statement https://t.co/vkgWjBemYc is correct from CLL's point of view, as well as from a logical point
2013-09-04 02:49:39@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb of view. The apparent disagreement comes from the fact that the meaning of "refer to" is ...
2013-09-04 02:50:42@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb different between la tsani and [CLL or la_az]. CLL's "can refer to" means "span". Because {da} is a bound variable,
2013-09-04 02:51:29@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb the range of variation of {da} spans all the elements of the universe of discourse. CLL16.4 means that the range
2013-09-04 02:51:54@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb is restricted by {poi}. The same thing is said by la_az. {su'o da poi mulna'u zo'u da mulna'usle}: the prenex...
2013-09-04 02:52:20@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb means that the range of variation of {da} spans {mulna'u}. On the other hand, la_tsani's "refer to" means ...
2013-09-04 02:52:57@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb "specify". Because {da} is a bound variable, {da} cannot specify an element of the universe of discourse. ...
2013-09-04 02:53:45@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb In my opinion, la_tsani's usage of "refer to" is standard in the domain of philosophy of language. CLL's notation..
2013-09-04 02:54:13@la_az_ @lorxus @djeikyb should be corrected in the version 2.0. Because la_az puts the twitter account away, I will try sending a private m
2013-09-04 02:55:38