From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Dec 21 03:15:46 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEMHi-0005Uq-IL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:15:46 -0800 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEMHd-0005T4-9Q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:15:46 -0800 Received: from chausie ([71.75.215.96]) by cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20081221111534.KBKC1780.cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com@chausie> for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:15:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5090518A3 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:15:33 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:15:22 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <96f789a60812191055s797c629bnf7e749e17902096d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191115n270695d3j2b072ab530895f9f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560812191115n270695d3j2b072ab530895f9f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812210615.23683.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15126 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Friday 19 December 2008 14:15:27 Jorge Llambías wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky > > wrote: > > And there is for "na", too. Like the first > > transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start > > of a prenex. > > Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be > moved to the start of a prenex. That's the problem with the special > na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined. How's this for a definition of the na-rule?: 1. Convert all conjunctions that connect two clauses (ijek) or bridi-tails (gihek) to forethought. 2. Move {na} which is not part of a conjunction as far as possible toward the beginning of the sentence without jumping over a conjunction that connects two clauses or bridi-tails, and replace it with {naku}. e.g. su'oda na broda gi'e brode ->su'oda ge na broda gi brode ->su'oda ge naku broda gi brode su'oda nage broda gi brode doesn't change, because {na} is part of the conjunction {nage}. Pierre To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.