[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote: > > The scope is completely determined by the parse. So: > > la nnla: (le nxle: (ri tvlekafi: xnrafi)) > > But the logical properties of "l-" mean that you can move them around > quite freely, so: > > le nxle: (la nnla: (ri tvlekafi: xnrafi)) > > has the same meaning, That's correct. But this part: > and so does: > > ri (la nnla: (le nxle: tvlekafi)): xnrafi obviously isn't. That leaves an unbound "a". I should have written: la nnla: (ri (le nxle: tvlekafi): xnrafi) mu'o mi'e xorxes