[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lojban] Re: PEG-grammar/camxes and selbri negation

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Florian Larysch
<florolf@devbraindump.de> wrote:
> When discussing selbri negation on IRC, we noticed the following:
>
> The CLL states:
>> Negations made with "na'e" or "na'eke" also
>> include within their scope any sumti attached to the brivla or tanru
>> with "be" or "bei". Such attached sumti are
>> considered part of the brivla or tanru

That's incorrect, at least so far as the formal grammar in Chapter 21
has precedence over the informal description (the PEG just follows
that). NAhE (and SE for that matter) bind closer than linkargs. The KE
part is correct.

> Therefore, a sentence like {mi na'e klama be fu lo birka lo zarci}
> should be grouped someway similar to {mi (na'e (klama be fu lo birka))
> lo zarci}.

Consider "lo zarci cu se na'e klama be mi". Which place of "klama"
does "mi" fill?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.