From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC_7IrkBBoE6-LO2Q@googlegroups.com Sat Sep 04 14:12:51 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Os02Y-0006c3-DP; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:50 -0700 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26sf795673wwf.16 for ; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=UKeYlQPRE3VPgUgmh8jJZ/3u/t4XXr5xtd6JGDKX2t0=; b=QvIarqR/BRFqGTrV9loBGPMfK5JuXar/SegR9p17zM76qFdIqYtlfRX/Z9VlSaGlHl LWRfcmMalBo67/4kxnVM8Qf944vO8nTiO3MdKmpsr3eXqfmWme0/opqiWCwKkG51BiTS 4um9pZF6vbMCp9w7u2VVDYPQn3UxP8OZCKF64= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=qrNCqIfsNGvIqrG9VkJIDQLr45RfEsJKmAznon6QZxe7H9GLDEVFaXpgJ4DRUN/7pj CGS9LISMlabP2gvEn1IF678jfqwjUwhZh/2uiLYECxDml+1R4LMUqVmTEszpr75wVLq4 s7K2tZ8KupD6EBZb3rTDhDOxLQ/4IDFHLdtAU= Received: by 10.216.145.167 with SMTP id p39mr435940wej.10.1283634751497; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.242.202 with SMTP id i52ls1159755wer.0.p; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.20.141 with SMTP id p13mr261169wep.11.1283634750251; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.20.141 with SMTP id p13mr261168wep.11.1283634750234; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com (mail-wy0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id s70si1133577weq.5.2010.09.04.14.12.29; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.180; Received: by mail-wy0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 40so4050990wyb.11 for ; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.129.84 with SMTP id n20mr546673wbs.61.1283634749028; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.147 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <022fd822-ce8f-4d77-84c5-f828612bb81f@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:12:28 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: .i ki'u lo cribe mi na sipna From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Lindar wrote: >> The special rule given in CLL for "na" just doesn't work. Consider for >> example: >> >> mu'i ma do na nelci loi kabri gi'e na se mikce >> >> How do you deal with the special na-rule there? > > It has scope over the whole -bridi- not jufra. > > {mu'i ma do na nelci loi kabri) is one bridi. > {do na se mikce} is another bridi. What happened to "mu'i ma" for the second bridi? > {.i mu'i a do na nelci loi kabri gi'e na se mikce} is two bridi. > We're faced with the same problem. What problem? > Whole bridi... So could you explain your view a bit better? Mi view is that bridi operators have scope over the operators that follow. That's a consistent rule that can always be applied. The CLL set of rules are inconsistent, or perhaps full of exceptions and extremely complex, they are not very clear. In the example I gave, according to CLL mu'i will have scope over gi'e, gi'e will have scope over each na, and (perhaps) each na will have scope over mu'i? How is that possible? mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.