From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:51:05 2010
Subject: Re: David Young's text
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 10:25:41 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9208200151.AC29793@relay1.UU.NET>; from "mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn" at Aug 20, 92 11:34 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Aug 20 10:25:41 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <rTCL1lQYLuD.A.IsH.Zz0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la deivid. cusku di'e

> >.i ko'a goi le nanmu
> >.i ko'e goi le nanmu .ije ko'a do nai ko'e

la nitcion. cusku di'e

> I think you mean {du nai}, which isn't grammatical either: {na du} (the
> reason {du nai} isn't grammatical is that it would introduce an ambiguity:
> mi du .uu nai do = mi du (.uu nai) do; mi (du (.uu) nai) do.

Well, not quite.  "du nai" is forbidden because "nai" is a special purpose
negator; it is used only where it is specifically allowed.  As Nick says,
"na du" does the job here.

Actually, inserting an attitudinal between another cmavo and its following
"nai" always creates an ambiguity, which is resolved in favor of the
attitudinal, thus:

	mi klama le zarci ca ui nai le nu do cadzu le bisli

means

	I go to the store when (unhappily) you dance on the ice.

and not

	I go to the store not when (happily) you dance on the ice.

-- 
John Cowan	cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban.