Re: [lojban] More glico ambiguous sentences

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

ooo, good one.

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:56, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope.  It was as generic as I made it.  "do not block air flow to avoid
> danger".  The ambiguity being that it could be "do not (block air flow to
> avoid danger)"  as in, people might think that blocking air flow would help
> them avoid danger but they shouldn't do it (silly but grammatical way to
> interpret it) or "do not (block air flow) [which will help you] to avoid
> danger".  Basically the scope of the "do not" isn't clear

There's also "do not (block (air flow to avoid danger))", i.e. there
is some air flow which (currently, constantly, or in general) avoids
danger, and people are advised not to block it.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>

--
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.

-- 
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.