From sentto-44114-1940-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Feb 06 08:14:20 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 16962 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 08:14:19 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 08:14:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 15499 invoked by uid 40001); 6 Feb 2000 08:16:23 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 15496 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 08:16:22 -0000 Received: from ch.egroups.com (208.48.218.21) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 08:16:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1940-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2000 08:16:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 13944 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 08:16:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.38 with QMQP; 6 Feb 2000 08:16:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (199.0.216.101) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 08:16:18 -0000 Received: from bob (dynamic224.cais.com [207.226.56.224]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA28283; Sun, 6 Feb 2000 03:15:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000206030618.00b128f0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 To: "Jorge Llambias" , lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: <20000206003537.40744.qmail@hotmail.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: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 03:16:46 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" Subject: Re: [lojban] 'nai' and .UI and ambiguity Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:35 PM 02/05/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote: >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? Those compounds that are recognized in the lexer (grammar rules above 800) cannot have any non lexer structures embedded. jenai is one of these lexer compounds. I would not go so far as to call them "single words" - the construct "no fiho pumod" comprising a complete tense can be so complex that no one would ever consider it a single compound. But originally you could not put a UI anywhere in such a lexer compound at all. Now you can, because Cowan wrote the parser to filter out UI in advance of the main lexer rules. So if you put ui in between je and nai, the nai will be taken as part of the attitudinal. > >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. Correct. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Love. Relationships? E - Commerce! Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com