Received: from mail-wi0-f188.google.com ([209.85.212.188]:53140) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDuTZ-0006Zu-2I for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:40 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f188.google.com with SMTP id em10sf2379337wid.5 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=HQiraBbrnDQpckXYU5L8VGXXmicsq+vnTu9gpU2j4c0=; b=L9Zegu51TlXIOr2IVm3/IbCSLjoCLSiMkYfdU3au2cXG1Gg+brPzvfANXjmsLXSWVd vy9XvgJoaB+2O3/vdxIkjf7etB06GruPd1nTirbn1asd3D2q2oEo6dyLItQui9yjLF8V lceGUEH2KiZcF42OjGNq3BxGHLiJAXouiymzKgi51PXOOdBeEJSNVBaOXGDUNV4NtYni loi6JvGMbqxZqSqPX+Ly4Pq6Hr/hLZKfJA68Z8weIlYJWQPyuzBAWx0yJiZ/0tv4+BI7 6cT2v3nHCY3oN13n3K/+eKO4+yiCA41+nL5avfHHA/c4IetWi3ahLoYH1MA8kPPnmQ5z BVTw== X-Received: by 10.152.204.71 with SMTP id kw7mr15778lac.21.1421843610471; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:30 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.153.11.6 with SMTP id ee6ls31785lad.7.gmail; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.137.70 with SMTP id qg6mr240837lbb.14.1421843609660; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8si100110wif.1.2015.01.21.04.33.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235; Received: by mail-wi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id fb4so20486940wid.2 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.83.98 with SMTP id p2mr57027100wiy.76.1421843606663; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.208 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:33:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54BEE656.9090807@gmail.com> References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> <54BEE656.9090807@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:26 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442885c19f61c050d28c3a8 X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 20/01/2015 19:38: > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:28 PM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jorge Llambías > > wrote: >> >> Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar should do is, >> given some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to: >> >> (1) convert the input into a string of phonemes >> (2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words >> (3) determine a tree structure for the string of words >> (4) determine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are >> predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of >> which predicates >> >> >> Rather: >> >> (1') convert the input into a string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes >> (2') convert the string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes into a string >> [or perhaps (prosodic) tree] of phonological words >> (3') map the tree of phonological words to a structure of syntactic >> 'words'/'nodes', which structure will specify which nodes of the tree are >> terms, which nodes are predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which >> terms are arguments of which predicates >> >> >> You seem to have just merged (2) and (3) into (2'), >> > > No, I meant (2') to be just a restatement of (2), with the added > acknowledgement that in human languages there is tree-like phonological > structure above the word level -- i.e. prosodic phonology, which yields > intonation phrases and so forth. (Google "prosodic phonology", but don't > get sidetracked, because it's orthogonal to my point.) I phrased it hedgily > because of course the formal definition of Lojban delibrately eschews > phonological structure beyond mere phoneme strings. But there is nothing of > (3) in (2'). [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.212.188 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jjllambias[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders --f46d0442885c19f61c050d28c3a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 20/01/2015 19:38: > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:28 PM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas > > wrote: >> >> Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar should do is= , >> given some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to: >> >> (1) convert the input into a string of phonemes >> (2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words >> (3) determine a tree structure for the string of words >> (4) determine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are >> predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments = of >> which predicates >> >> >> Rather: >> >> (1') convert the input into a string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes >> (2') convert the string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes into a string >> [or perhaps (prosodic) tree] of phonological words >> (3') map the tree of phonological words to a structure of syntactic >> 'words'/'nodes', which structure will specify which nodes of the tree ar= e >> terms, which nodes are predicates, which terms are co-referring, and whi= ch >> terms are arguments of which predicates >> >> >> You seem to have just merged (2) and (3) into (2'), >> > > No, I meant (2') to be just a restatement of (2), with the added > acknowledgement that in human languages there is tree-like phonological > structure above the word level -- i.e. prosodic phonology, which yields > intonation phrases and so forth. (Google "prosodic phonology", but don't > get sidetracked, because it's orthogonal to my point.) I phrased it hedgi= ly > because of course the formal definition of Lojban delibrately eschews > phonological structure beyond mere phoneme strings. But there is nothing = of > (3) in (2'). Ok, I see. Then my (3) and (4) are merged into your (3'), with the proviso that you think (3) is either useless or possibly detrimental to achieving (3'). BTW, don't the C's and V's of the traditional definition give some phonological structure beyond mere phoneme strings? The PEG morphology also makes use of syllables and their onset-nucleus-coda components. That's phonological structure, right? which may be more general, but in the particular case of Lojban we >> know that (2') can be achieved in two independent steps, one step >> that takes any string of phonemes and unambiguously dissects it into >> a string of words (possibly including non-lojban words), >> > > yes > > and a second step that takes the resulting string of words as input >> and unambiguously gives a unique tree structure for them (or else >> rejects the string of words as ungrammatical). >> > > No. The second step (my (3')) takes the string of phonological words but > it doesn't give a *syntactic* tree structure whose terminal nodes are > phonological words, which is what I take "gives a tree structure for them= " > to mean. Not every syntactic node need correspond to a phonological one > (e.g. ellipsis, which Lojban uses) and a phonological word can correspond > to more than one syntactic one (e.g. English _you're_ is one phonological > word corresponding to a sequence of a pronoun and an auxiliary). In Lojban we could say that the reverse happens with "ybu", which would be one syntactic word consisting of two phonological words (defining syntactic word as those that can be quoted with "zo" according to PEG). Rather, step (3') uses the rules that define correspondences between > elements of the sentence's phonology and elements of the sentence's synta= x, > to find a sentence syntax that -- in Lojban's case, uniquely -- licitly > corresponds to the sentence's phonology. > > Step (3') yields something like Tersmu output, probably augmented by some > purely syntactic (i.e. without logical import) structure. I think that ca= n > and should be done without reference to the formal grammars. But Tersmu output is basically FOPL, which has its own formal grammar (on which Lojban's formal grammar is based). I still don't see what problems formal grammars create. > If that's more or less on track, then we can say that the YACC/EBNF >> formal grammars do (3). The PEG grammar does (2) and (3). Martin's tersm= u >> is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our formal grammars do (= 3) >> is probably not much like the way our brains do (3), but I'm not sure I = see >> what alternative we have. >> >> Right. So I think (3) is not a valid step. >> >> But why is it invalid if it achieves the desired result? >> > > It just doesn't yield a human language. And to the (considerable) extent > to which Lojban counts as a human language, it is working despite (3) > rather than because of it. I can accept that, or perhaps "regardless of (3)", but I agree not "because of (3)". But I'm not sure there's much left of Lojban if we remove (3). . The current PEG doesn't produce binary branching exclusively, >> although it can probably be tweaked to do that by adding many >> intermediate rules. Why is unary branching bad? >> > > Human languages seem not to avail themselves of it; unary branching > constitutes a superfluous richness of structural possibilities. Ok. As an example, the PEG has: statement <- statement-1 / prenex statement statement-1 <- statement-2 (I-clause joik-jek statement-2?)* The first rule means that a "statement" node can unary branch into a "statement-1" node, or binary branch into "prenex" and "statement" nodes. The PEG could instead just be: statement <- statement-2 (I-clause joik-jek statement-2?)* / prenex stat= ement and completely bypass the statement-1 node, which is indeed superfluous. The PEG can probably be re-written so as to eliminate all unary branching, although there may be a price in clarity. There are many rules where one of the branches is optional, so that >> would result either in an empty leaf or a unary branch. >> > > Say you've got an optionally transitive/intransitive verb, such as Englis= h > _swallow_. When it has an object, they jointly form a binary branching > phrase. When it lacks an object, then there is no need for any branching; > so for example _I swallow_ could be a binary phrase whose constituents do > not themselves branch. (It's true that many models of syntax do allow una= ry > branching precisely when the daughter node is terminal, so rather than > argue over that, let me instead say that it's unary branching with a > nonterminal node that is superfluous.) OK, but is this more than just aesthetics? Unary branches don't do anything useful, but are they harmful other than in cluttering the tree with superfluous nodes? I'm probably asking the wrong questions anyway, because I'm not yet capable of identifying the problem. Would you want binary branching all the way down to phonemes, or just >> to words? >> > > Syntactic words and phonemes don't exist on the same plane; phonemes don'= t > comprise syntactic words; syntactic words don't consist of phonemes. Ok, but in Lojban there's almost a one-to-one match between phonological and syntactic words. > I think binary branching in syntax has many virtues, and I believe natlan= g > syntax is binary branching (-- English for sure; other languages - > probably), but it's not the case that all right-minded linguisticians sha= re > that view. I myself don't think that phonological structure above or belo= w > the word level is binary branching, but others do; either way, the nature > of phonological structure is not really germane. When you say something like "I believe natlang syntax is binary branching" I realize we have a different idea about what syntax is, because I can't have any beliefs one way or the other on whether natlang syntax is binary branching or not. Let me try to explain with a simple Lojban example. One could posit several different syntactic structures for the sumti "lo broda ku": (1) (lo broda)- -ku (2) lo- -(broda ku) (3) (lo- -ku) -broda- (4) lo- -broda- -ku For me they are all defensible. (1) probably reflects best how "ku" was born, a "spoken comma", something that separates the fully formed sumti "lo broda" from the rest of the sentence. (2) may reflect best my psychological introspective understanding of "ku" as a terminator of the sumti-tail. (3) reflects a popular take where lo...ku are brackets around a selbri that convert it into a sumti, and (4) happens to best match what PEG, YACC and BNF do, since they give a node with three branches. If I understand you correctly, only one of those four could correctly reflect Lojban syntax, whereas for me all four are equally valid takes since in the end it makes no difference which one we choose. Now in the case of Lojban we could say that only one of these is the officially correct syntax (currently that would be 4), but if something like that happens in natlangs, does it make sense to talk of "the syntax" for the natlang as opposed to "a syntax"? mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --f46d0442885c19f61c050d28c3a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com><= /span> wrote:
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 20/01/2015 19:38:=
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:28 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>&g= t; wrote:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com<= /a> <mailto:jj= llambias@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Would it be fair to say that what an actual gra= mmar should do is, given some input of sound or written characters, tell us= how to:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1) convert the input into a string of phonemes=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (2) convert the string of phonemes into a strin= g of words
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (3) determine a tree structure for the string o= f words
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (4) determine which nodes of the tree are terms= , which nodes are predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms= are arguments of which predicates


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Rather:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1') convert the input into a string [or perhaps tree] of= phonemes
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (2') convert the string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes int= o a string [or perhaps (prosodic) tree] of phonological words
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (3') map the tree of phonological words to a structure of= syntactic 'words'/'nodes', which structure will specify wh= ich nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are predicates, which terms ar= e co-referring, and which terms are arguments of which predicates


You seem to have just merged (2) and (3) into (2'),

No, I meant (2') to be just a restatement of (2), with the added acknow= ledgement that in human languages there is tree-like phonological structure= above the word level -- i.e. prosodic phonology, which yields intonation p= hrases and so forth. (Google "prosodic phonology", but don't = get sidetracked, because it's orthogonal to my point.) I phrased it hed= gily because of course the formal definition of Lojban delibrately eschews = phonological structure beyond mere phoneme strings. But there is nothing of= (3) in (2').

Ok, I see. Then my (3) an= d (4) are merged into your (3'), with the proviso that you think (3) is= either useless or possibly detrimental to achieving (3').
BTW, don't the C's and V's of the traditional defi= nition give some phonological structure beyond mere phoneme strings? The PE= G morphology also makes use of syllables and their onset-nucleus-coda compo= nents. That's phonological structure, right?=C2=A0

=
which may be more general, but in the particular case of Lojban we
know that (2') can be achieved in two independent steps, one step
that takes any string of phonemes and unambiguously dissects it into
a string of words (possibly including non-lojban words),

 yes

and a second step that takes the resulting string of words as input
and unambiguously gives a unique tree structure for them (or else
rejects the string of words as ungrammatical).

 No. The second step (my (3')) takes the string of phonological words bu= t it doesn't give a *syntactic* tree structure whose terminal nodes are= phonological words, which is what I take "gives a tree structure for = them" to mean. Not every syntactic node need correspond to a phonologi= cal one (e.g. ellipsis, which Lojban uses) and a phonological word can corr= espond to more than one syntactic one (e.g. English _you're_ is one pho= nological word corresponding to a sequence of a pronoun and an auxiliary).<= /blockquote>

In Lojban we could say that the reverse hap= pens with "ybu", which would be one syntactic word consisting of = two phonological words (defining syntactic word as those that can be quoted= with "zo" according to PEG).=C2=A0

Rather, step (3') uses the rules that define correspondences b= etween elements of the sentence's phonology and elements of the sentenc= e's syntax, to find a sentence syntax that -- in Lojban's case, uni= quely -- licitly corresponds to the sentence's phonology.

Step (3') yields something like Tersmu output, probably augmented by so= me purely syntactic (i.e. without logical import) structure. I think that c= an and should be done without reference to the formal grammars.

But Tersmu output is basically FOPL, which has its own= formal grammar (on which Lojban's formal grammar is based). I still do= n't see what problems formal grammars create.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 > If that's more or less on track, then we can say tha= t the YACC/EBNF formal grammars do (3). The PEG grammar does (2) and (3). M= artin's tersmu is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our form= al grammars do (3) is probably not much like the way our brains do (3), but= I'm not sure I see what alternative we have.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Right. So I think (3) is not a valid step.

But why is it invalid if it achieves the desired result?

 It just doesn't yield a human language. And to the (considerable) exten= t to which Lojban counts as a human language, it is working despite (3) rat= her than because of it.

I can accept that, = or perhaps "regardless of (3)", but I agree not "because of = (3)". But I'm not sure there's much left of Lojban if we remov= e (3).
.=C2=A0

The current PEG doesn't produce binary branching exclusively,
although it can probably be tweaked to do that by adding many
intermediate rules. Why is unary branching bad?

 Human languages seem not to avail themselves of it; unary branching constit= utes a superfluous richness of structural possibilities.
<= br>
Ok. As an example, the PEG has:

statement <- statement-1 / prenex= statement

statement-1 <- statement-2 (I-clause joik-jek statement-2= ?)*
The first =
rule means that a "statement" node can unary branch into a "=
statement-1" node, or binary branch into "prenex" and "=
statement" nodes. The PEG could instead just be:
   statement <- statement-2 (I-clause joik-jek statement=
-2?)* / prenex statemen=
t
and completely by=
pass the statement-1 node, which is indeed superfluous. The PEG can probably be re-written so as =
to eliminate all unary branching, although there may be a price in clarity.=

<= /div>
There are many rules where one of the branches is optional, so that
would result either in an empty leaf or a unary branch.

 Say you've got an optionally transitive/intransitive verb, such as Engl= ish _swallow_. When it has an object, they jointly form a binary branching = phrase. When it lacks an object, then there is no need for any branching; s= o for example _I swallow_ could be a binary phrase whose constituents do no= t themselves branch. (It's true that many models of syntax do allow una= ry branching precisely when the daughter node is terminal, so rather than a= rgue over that, let me instead say that it's unary branching with a non= terminal node that is superfluous.)

OK, but= is this more than just aesthetics? Unary branches don't do anything us= eful, but are they harmful other than in cluttering the tree with superfluo= us nodes? I'm probably asking the wrong questions anyway, because I'= ;m not yet capable of identifying the problem.

Would you want binary branching all the way down to phonemes, or just
to words?

 Syntactic words and phonemes don't exist on the same plane; phonemes do= n't comprise syntactic words; syntactic words don't consist of phon= emes.

Ok, but in Lojban there's almost = a one-to-one match between phonological and syntactic words.
=C2= =A0
I think binary branching in syntax has many virt= ues, and I believe natlang syntax is binary branching (-- English for sure;= other languages - probably), but it's not the case that all right-mind= ed linguisticians share that view. I myself don't think that phonologic= al structure above or below the word level is binary branching, but others = do; either way, the nature of phonological structure is not really germane.=

When you say something like "I believ= e natlang syntax is binary branching" I realize we have a different id= ea about what syntax is, because I can't have any beliefs one way or th= e other on whether natlang syntax is binary branching or not. Let me try to= explain with a simple Lojban example. One could posit several different sy= ntactic structures for the sumti "lo broda ku":

(1) (lo broda)- -ku
(2) lo- -(broda ku)
(3) (lo= - -ku) -broda-
(4) lo- =C2=A0-broda- =C2=A0-ku

For me they are all defensible. (1) probably reflects best how "= ;ku" was born, a "spoken comma", something that separates th= e fully formed sumti "lo broda" from the rest of the sentence. (2= ) may reflect best my psychological introspective understanding of "ku= " as a terminator of the sumti-tail. (3) reflects a popular take where= lo...ku are brackets around a selbri that convert it into a sumti, and (4)= happens to best match what PEG, YACC and BNF do, since they give a node wi= th three branches.=C2=A0

If I understand you corre= ctly, only one of those four could correctly reflect Lojban syntax, whereas= for me all four are equally valid takes since in the end it makes no diffe= rence which one we choose. Now in the case of Lojban we could say that only= one of these is the officially correct syntax (currently that would be 4),= but if something like that happens in natlangs, does it make sense to talk= of "the syntax" for the natlang as opposed to "a syntax&quo= t;?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

<= /div>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--f46d0442885c19f61c050d28c3a8--