From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Nov 02 13:56:13 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56908 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 21:56:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2004 21:56:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2004 21:56:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6dP-0000s7-8z for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:56:11 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6Y4-0000f4-Q0; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:50:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6Xt-0000en-6D for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:50:29 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:50:29 -0800 Message-ID: <20041102215029.GP2858@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041102213330.GA10350@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> <20041102214429.52886.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041102214429.52886.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 8915 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope. Again. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23321 On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:44:29PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- 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), That is also my belief and, in fact, I think it *must* mean (1), because if it means either (2) or (3), there is no way to say (1) in afterthought! I don't see a semantic difference between (2) and (3); am I missing something? > > > 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). And {mi nelci na gi'e nai djica} is unambiguously (2). -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/