Re: [lojban] Re: .i ki'u lo cribe mi na sipna

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The special rule given in CLL for "na" just doesn't work. Consider for
>> example:
>>
>> mu'i ma do na nelci loi kabri gi'e na se mikce
>>
>> How do you deal with the special na-rule there?
>
> It has scope over the whole -bridi- not jufra.
>
> {mu'i ma do na nelci loi kabri) is one bridi.
> {do na se mikce} is another bridi.

What happened to "mu'i ma" for the second bridi?

> {.i mu'i a do na nelci loi kabri gi'e na se mikce} is two bridi.
> We're faced with the same problem.

What problem?

> Whole bridi... So could you explain your view a bit better?

Mi view is that bridi operators have scope over the operators that
follow. That's a consistent rule that can always be applied.

The CLL set of rules are inconsistent, or perhaps full of exceptions
and extremely complex, they are not very clear. In the example I gave,
according to CLL mu'i will have scope over gi'e, gi'e will have scope
over each na, and (perhaps) each na will have scope over mu'i? How is
that possible?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.