[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:44:29PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Tuesday, 2004-11-02 at 13:08 -0800 - Jorge Llamb?as
> > <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>:
> > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Does {mi na nelci gi'e djica} mean:
> > >
> > > The three meanings can be unambiguously expressed thusly:
> > > 
> > > (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica
> > > (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica
> > > (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica
> > > 
> > > The parser would suggest that {mi na nelci gi djica}
> > > corresponds to (1), 

That is also my belief and, in fact, I think it *must* mean (1),
because if it means either (2) or (3), there is no way to say (1) in
afterthought!

I don't see a semantic difference between (2) and (3); am I missing
something?

> > > but sometimes we don't pay any heed to what the parser says in
> > > these matters, especially when {na} is involved.
> > 
> > {mi naku nelci gi'e djica} would still be (3) though, right?
> 
> Right. And {mi nelci na gi'e djica} is unambiguously (1).

And {mi nelci na gi'e nai djica} is unambiguously (2).

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/