[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[Martin Bays <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

* Tuesday, 2004-11-02 at 13:44 -0800 - Jorge Llamb?as <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>:

> --- Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Tuesday, 2004-11-02 at 13:08 -0800 - Jorge Llamb?as
> > <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>:
> > > (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica
> > > (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica
> > > (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica
> > > 
> > {mi naku nelci gi'e djica} would still be (3) though, right?
> 
> Right. And {mi nelci na gi'e djica} is unambiguously (1).

Yes, confusingly enough.

While we're on the subject... Is the BPFK or anyone else ba'o a ca a pu'o
working on the various problems with the interaction between negation,
unprenexed quantifiers and infix connectives, as raised e.g. by pycyn on the
wiki some months (years?) ago
(http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Logic+Language+Draft+3.1)?

Last I heard much of the semantics in even slightly complicated cases was
ill-defined. Is this still the case?

Martin