[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jboske] anaphora & glorking (was: RE: sane kau? (was: RE:



At 06:24 PM 12/17/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Jordan DeLong scripsit:
> I don't know why the seperate prenex infront of the ".ije" was
> removed from the grammar. It used to be there, and there's even
> examples in CLL which use it (chap 16). In order for the 'external
> bridi negation' rules to work properly it must exist also.

Ambiguity. If a prenex is allowed before each individual sentence,
and also before the group of ijek-connected sentences, we can't tell
when we see a prenex after .i or ni'o or start-of-text which kind it is
and what its scope is.

> I don't know if fixing this is something the BF can do. But it's
> a contradiction in CLL, so it should be at least considered.

I agree that it is a contradiction and should be fixed, but at the
moment I don't see quite how.

Long scope prenex before connected sentences requires forethought, and hence tu'e/tu'u, which is probably an underutilized feature of the language.


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