From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Nov 02 13:51:28 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 52582 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6Vj-0000cs-6C for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:48:15 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6Sr-0000XQ-01; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:45:17 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41908.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.159]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6Sf-0000Wu-5c for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:45:05 -0800 Message-ID: <20041102214429.52886.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.45.146.138] by web41908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:44:29 PST Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:44:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20041102213330.GA10350@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8914 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: na scope. Again. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23320 --- Martin Bays wrote: > * Tuesday, 2004-11-02 at 13:08 -0800 - Jorge Llamb?as > : > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > Does {mi na nelci gi'e djica} mean: > > > > The three meanings can be unambiguously expressed thusly: > > > > (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica > > (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica > > (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica > > > > The parser would suggest that {mi na nelci gi djica} > > corresponds to (1), but sometimes we don't pay any heed > > to what the parser says in these matters, especially > > when {na} is involved. > > {mi naku nelci gi'e djica} would still be (3) though, right? Right. And {mi nelci na gi'e djica} is unambiguously (1). mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com