From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 06 19:26:43 1996 Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA11663 ; Mon, 06 May 96 19:26:29 BST Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 831390184:15939:0; Mon, 06 May 96 14:43:04 BST Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa15664; 6 May 96 14:42 +0100 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5377; Mon, 06 May 96 09:42:01 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7898; Mon, 06 May 96 09:41:49 EDT Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 09:40:32 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: ambiguity? X-To: Lojban List To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <831390147.15664.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R la paulos. cusku di'e > Consider these two phrases: > > 1. la noi melbi kris. > 2. la noiMELbikris. > > Note that "noiMELbikris." is a simple cmene in 2. > > I claim it is impossible to distinguish between them in > spoken language. Could anybody provide a refutation? > (If not, relative clauses after selma'o LA introduce an > ambiguity in Lojban and should be revised). Your Example 1 is not valid, and needs to read 1a) la noi melbi .kris. Every name-word must be preceded by "la", "lai", "la'i", "doi", or pause; the last case used to be thought rare before new constructs and the recognition of older cases like "la ba'e .djan." and "la .ui .djan.". -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban