Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:52:25 +0000

la and cusku di'e

>The idea that the prenex of the main bridi has scope over
>subsequent sentence connectives is not daft, though, and I can't see any 
>obvious
>or insuperable problems with it.

The main problem I have with that is that it requires
negation to have scope over subsequent sentence connectives
as well, which to me seems extremely counterintuitive.

{ro da na broda ije da brode} would mean "it is not the case
that everything is both broda and brode".

My preferred interpretation for that sentence is
"it is not the case that everything is broda, and it
is the case that something is brode".

The Book does not give a clear ruling on what the scope
precedence of {ro}, {na} and {je} in {ro da na broda ije da
brode} is.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail