Re: [lojban] Re: Error in bnf.300

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Bob LeChevalier scripsit:

> It prescriptively shouldn't be able to.  Under TECHFIX 45, the ability to 
> put an unmarked prenex after an IJEK was specifically and intentionally 
> removed.  It formerly had been able to do so, so the change was made 
> because Cowan (and others) were convinced that it was wrong to allow this.

Indeed, it makes little sense to conjoin sentences in this form:

	bla bla bla zo'u (sentence) .ije bla bla bla zo'u (sentence)

because it makes the first prenex apply to both sentences, the second one
to the right sentence only:  or does it?  Maybe the left prenex applies
to the left sentence and the right prenex to the right sentence.  Rather
than trying to discriminate, we just rejected this form altogether,
which was made possible by treating i and ijek separately.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Heckler: "Go on, Al, tell 'em all you know.  It won't take long."
Al Smith: "I'll tell 'em all we *both* know.  It won't take any longer."


To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/