From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:47:29 2010 Subject: Re: NAI To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:00:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <199510221218.IAA03507@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Oct 22, 95 12:10:30 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 962 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 23 13:00:39 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: 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.