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

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
> 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.

A similar thing happens with {su'o da na broda gi'e na brode}. Does the 
first {na} negate the whole thing, or just the first part? We don't have 
a conclusive answer yet, as any choice enters into conflict with 
something else, yet the solution is surely not to disallow the second 
{na}.

Afterthought connectives have problems with scope issues, but there'e
always the clear forethought alternative.

>  Rather
> than trying to discriminate, we just rejected this form altogether,
> which was made possible by treating i and ijek separately.

Unfortunately that complicates the grammar and makes it more difficult
to learn. I'm probably not going to remember that you can't have a
prenex after ije/ibo/iseni'ibo/etc.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html