[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: Fw: bridi tail negation
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Fw: bridi tail negation
- From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:28:03 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OWu2QmXH1oyxRIEztgBUuHRZbig2fwvNnZGbz7CSm0Y=; b=it5ybOhb03Ef17S6qtBfDyIiHqnwp4R0k8vkmN1A0OmABA7Ce4tKfxiGzmgLvD73yK kvXw4JZsyhCxhR5uUq0FOlHR1xLOsF6NarAUHtWkJFMlPI++vL4hsFDy7Ph9itufmDEQ cQwglB6afj1CLqSDa+UkdLJYurl7CMltlHG6g=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WsML6cdrdu5Sseb7bc3Q2IOkKdgNMubS7TGL/3/osNeBo+j3YSDKfZQfbfPcszjEsU duETLvH6Z9vNMGL859U1m5uA19OipzN18eZw8AweIOXibFZwxtNmMli41m3l3D7cSbD4 BbxlS4xJGfxIF0v0Z76FbSLBp951IlecpwIp0=
- In-reply-to: <96f789a61003040653h3cbf33fbn82c24ece8e63ec22@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <395141.17119.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <96f789a61003040653h3cbf33fbn82c24ece8e63ec22@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> {.i na'e se zanfri fa lonu zutse ne'i le ricyzda gi'e na tavla}?
>>
>> Would the negation have covered the whole bridi or just the bridi tail?
>
> My belief is that it would also just negate the tail. More
> problematic to me is a na in front of the first selbri. The CLL
> doesn't unfortunately cover these cases.
It is clear from the formal grammar that the parsing is:
(na tavla) gi'e (zutse ne'i le ricyzda)
i.e. the same as for:
ge (na tavla) gi (zutse ne'i le ricyzda)
mu'o mi'e xorxes