From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Sep 24 14:10:00 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MqvZf-0005ee-RB for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:10:00 -0700 Received: from mail-yw0-f204.google.com ([209.85.211.204]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MqvZc-0005eI-Fp for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:09:59 -0700 Received: by ywh42 with SMTP id 42so2388056ywh.28 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:09:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=J6xdCaCosCDfTlZhg4pjUOTkyjaCpCfBEkj4z7VMC+g=; b=LyOdtUUVa4BsWAEAnZ2/s5JwbU7JE7Kh21S2HVdUuMd5LWTdBxGFz/M7rzLsXz+q7K 4P1cE5SUUvoqhGVRbvoNvx9GlRUVhga3+pcgFifvxae9WA5tjgWVce0vyq6G82RIdKhu CRxl5zsuCsbUzw71VFV7wuUXnCUzphT9UNQ9M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=w57COqJ6KKTsMAI1Zx+SxWPk9TV3D0LPxCc5LWeq1aU9Mqe8LHLnUpIkKZspgXxRRD Ex0Vf9BpAiJak8d68lp5AHK4Ib7J0soA90HghPlYUiFfcnAjhA0agkoGsLDe7xhj/KXq mwjWn02i3/uIsQZb2I8QbI/ucr6Ix5qnAD1kQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.122.11 with SMTP id z11mr230911agm.111.1253826589732; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:09:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090924202740.GJ5992@vs244023.vserver.de> References: <20090924202740.GJ5992@vs244023.vserver.de> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:09:49 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560909241409tdbd6d5ex42e16d5d87d2cadb@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: PEG-grammar/camxes and selbri negation From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 16247 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Florian Larysch wrote: > When discussing selbri negation on IRC, we noticed the following: > > The CLL states: >> Negations made with "na'e" or "na'eke" also >> include within their scope any sumti attached to the brivla or tanru >> with "be" or "bei". Such attached sumti are >> considered part of the brivla or tanru That's incorrect, at least so far as the formal grammar in Chapter 21 has precedence over the informal description (the PEG just follows that). NAhE (and SE for that matter) bind closer than linkargs. The KE part is correct. > Therefore, a sentence like {mi na'e klama be fu lo birka lo zarci} > should be grouped someway similar to {mi (na'e (klama be fu lo birka)) > lo zarci}. Consider "lo zarci cu se na'e klama be mi". Which place of "klama" does "mi" fill? mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.