From sentto-44114-21785-1079927384-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sun Mar 21 19:50:23 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:50:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.65]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5GS8-000705-Ps for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:50:17 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-21785-1079927384-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Mar 2004 03:49:44 -0000 X-Sender: cowan@ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 97686 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 03:49:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2004 03:49:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 03:49:43 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1B5GQV-0005eB-00 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:48:35 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20040322034835.GJ4876@ccil.org> References: <20040321191809.GB32271@digitalkingdom.org> <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> <20040321191809.GB32271@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20040321190741.0333f600@pop.east.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040321190741.0333f600@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 192.190.237.100 From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: johnwcowan MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 22:48:35 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Error in bnf.300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 7288 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: cowan@ccil.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Bob LeChevalier scripsit: > It prescriptively shouldn't be able to. Under TECHFIX 45, the ability to > put an unmarked prenex after an IJEK was specifically and intentionally > removed. It formerly had been able to do so, so the change was made > because Cowan (and others) were convinced that it was wrong to allow this. Indeed, it makes little sense to conjoin sentences in this form: bla bla bla zo'u (sentence) .ije bla bla bla zo'u (sentence) because it makes the first prenex apply to both sentences, the second one to the right sentence only: or does it? Maybe the left prenex applies to the left sentence and the right prenex to the right sentence. Rather than trying to discriminate, we just rejected this form altogether, which was made possible by treating i and ijek separately. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Heckler: "Go on, Al, tell 'em all you know. It won't take long." Al Smith: "I'll tell 'em all we *both* know. It won't take any longer." To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/