From rspeer@MIT.EDU Fri Apr 18 13:18:26 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu ([18.7.21.83]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 196cJQ-0001Gh-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:18:20 -0700 Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h3IKIJLV017286 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h3IKIJeI013156 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from torg.mit.edu (TORG.MIT.EDU [18.243.1.228]) ) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h3IKIJU8014890 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rob by torg.mit.edu with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 196cJM-0004M3-00 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:18:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:18:16 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ynai Message-ID: <20030418201816.GB16622@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <200304181207.22479.phma@webjockey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 4838 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rspeer@MIT.EDU Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:41:37PM -0400, Craig wrote: > >{mi viska le bloti y nai} is grammatical according to jbofi'e, but {mi > viska > >le bloti nai} is not. Is it correct? > > The nai bonds to the y. NAI never bond to a word other than the immediately > preceeding one. Thus, mi viska le bloti ynai means "I see the boat (and I > don't hesitate to say so)" whereas mi viska le bloti nai is ungramatical. I > have been unable to find Y being negated in this way in any real use, > however. That's icky. Saying "uh" should not change the grammar of the sentence. It should be pre-parsed out like word+SI. -- mu'o mi'e y rab.spir