From sentto-44114-1936-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Feb 06 00:33:41 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 16306 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 00:33:40 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 00:33:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 1997 invoked by uid 40001); 6 Feb 2000 00:35:42 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 1994 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 00:35:40 -0000 Received: from fk.egroups.com (208.48.218.17) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 00:35:40 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1936-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by fk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2000 00:35:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 30516 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 00:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.35 with QMQP; 6 Feb 2000 00:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.78) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 00:35:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 40745 invoked by uid 0); 6 Feb 2000 00:35:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20000206003537.40744.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.36 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Feb 2000 16:35:37 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.36] To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 16:35:37 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] 'nai' and .UI and ambiguity Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >Since 'nai' has more uses than just within an indicator phrase, >allowing it anywhere would cause ambiguity, since in some cases >we wouldn't know whether it's negating an unspecified .UI or serving >some other role. Could you give an example? I think the reason {nai} was not put in UI is because it was felt that the parser had to identify things like {jenai} as a word different from {je} and the parser doesn't "see" any UI, but not because there could be any ambiguity. How could there be? >Speaking of which, how are we to interpret the pattern > > broda je ge'e nai brode > >Does the 'nai' polarly negate the indicator, or does it pick up >after the indicator ends and contradictorily negate brode? It negates the indicator. Always the immediately preceding word. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Want To Be Showered With Kisses? Visit eGroups Valentine Gift Guide Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com