Re: [lojban] ije + naku ?

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:34:22PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > Is there any reason *not* to so modify the parser?  I'm really
> > surprised this restriction exints; does anyone know the reason?
> 
> If you want a prenex to have scope over ijek-connected sentences,
> you can't allow each sentences to have its own prenex (or at least
> the first one can't have its own prenex). I always found the
> choice of giving ijeks tighter scope than prenexes unintuitive,
> but whichever way you choose, you lose something. With forethought
> connectives, the issue doesn't arise.

Ah, Ok, thanks.  No reason to change the current state, then; if
someone could add this issue to the errata page, that would be
swell.

-Robin

-- 
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.