From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 02 13:50:37 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CP6Xt-0000en-6D
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:50:29 -0800
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:50:29 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope.  Again.
Message-ID: <20041102215029.GP2858@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20041102213330.GA10350@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> <20041102214429.52886.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041102214429.52886.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 8915
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:44:29PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Tuesday, 2004-11-02 at 13:08 -0800 - Jorge Llamb?as
> > <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>:
> > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Does {mi na nelci gi'e djica} mean:
> > >
> > > The three meanings can be unambiguously expressed thusly:
> > > 
> > > (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica
> > > (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica
> > > (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica
> > > 
> > > The parser would suggest that {mi na nelci gi djica}
> > > corresponds to (1), 

That is also my belief and, in fact, I think it *must* mean (1),
because if it means either (2) or (3), there is no way to say (1) in
afterthought!

I don't see a semantic difference between (2) and (3); am I missing
something?

> > > but sometimes we don't pay any heed to what the parser says in
> > > these matters, especially when {na} is involved.
> > 
> > {mi naku nelci gi'e djica} would still be (3) though, right?
> 
> Right. And {mi nelci na gi'e djica} is unambiguously (1).

And {mi nelci na gi'e nai djica} is unambiguously (2).

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/