Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t7SJk-0000ZOC; Mon, 23 Oct 95 21:13 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 88D20AB9 ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 20:13:51 +0100 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:00:39 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: NAI X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199510221218.IAA03507@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Oct 22, 95 12:10:30 pm Content-Length: 1022 Lines: 32 la .and. cusku di'e > Lojban in general has no > idioms - the sense of a phrase is fully predictable from the meaning > of its parts[.] This is not really true: the sense of "skami pilno" may be "user of computers", or "computer which is a user", or other more exotic possibilities. > Second, and more interestingly, UI are in general invisible > to other words, but they appear to be visible to NAI. How so? This > is accounted for if the bond between UI and following NAI is > morphological. I would hesitate to say that UI are "invisible"; they have a syntactic bond to the previous item: thus skami a'o pilno groups as (skami a'o) pilno although it is true that "(skami a'o)" has the same grammatical properties as "skami". This is in fact how the parser implements attitudinals: it binds them to the preceding word, returning a new node of the same selma'o as the preceding word. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.