On 04/12/2014 21:46, la durka wrote:
El miércoles, 3 de diciembre de 2014 21:48:11 UTC-5, Pierre
Abbat escribió:
On
Wednesday, December 03, 2014 13:01:26 la durka wrote:
> However (again), that leaves a subtle problem with scope.
{na} scopes over
> the {ki'u} clause, so this says "It's not true that (I
can jump because I'm
> a white man)", i.e. "Being a white man is not the reason
that I can jump".
> It should be flipped to get the correct scoping, as in
{ki'u da'i lo nu mi
> kapli nakni kei mi na kakne lo ka plipe}, or you can
split it into two
> jufra as {mi na kakne lo ka plipe .i da'i lo nu mi kapli
nakni cu krinu [lo
> du'u go'i]}.
> (Sorry. Negation can make things complicated.)
The order of terms doesn't affect the scope of {na}; it
negates the whole
bridi. It does affect the scope of {naku}, which is a term
(but not a sumti).
{naku} negates from there to the end of the bridi. So you can
say {ki'u da'i
lo nu mi kapli nakni kei mi naku kakne lo ka plipe}.
Most people these days seem to treat {na selbri} as {naku
selbri}, essentially.
If {na} were to behave as any regular selbritcita, {na broda} would
be synonymous with {broda be naku} and {kai'u naku broda kei}. This
way, it would have minimal scope.
I've never used the maximal scope interpretation (I find it
counterintuitive with regard to the regular selbritcita paradigm),
and do not remember having witnessed it to be much used in current
usage.
mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|