From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon Mar 22 14:49:17 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56316 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 22:49:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2004 22:49:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 22:49:16 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5YEC-00047W-RQ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:49:04 -0800 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5YCo-0003zv-NX; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:47:38 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:47:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41905.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.156]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B5YCg-0003xr-9w for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:47:30 -0800 Message-ID: <20040322224659.80023.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.60] by web41905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:46:59 PST Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:46:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20040322034835.GJ4876@ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7292 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Error in bnf.300 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21766 --- John Cowan wrote: > Indeed, it makes little sense to conjoin sentences in this form: > > bla bla bla zo'u (sentence) .ije bla bla bla zo'u (sentence) > > because it makes the first prenex apply to both sentences, the second one > to the right sentence only: or does it? Maybe the left prenex applies > to the left sentence and the right prenex to the right sentence. A similar thing happens with {su'o da na broda gi'e na brode}. Does the first {na} negate the whole thing, or just the first part? We don't have a conclusive answer yet, as any choice enters into conflict with something else, yet the solution is surely not to disallow the second {na}. Afterthought connectives have problems with scope issues, but there'e always the clear forethought alternative. > Rather > than trying to discriminate, we just rejected this form altogether, > which was made possible by treating i and ijek separately. Unfortunately that complicates the grammar and makes it more difficult to learn. I'm probably not going to remember that you can't have a prenex after ije/ibo/iseni'ibo/etc. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html