From ragnarok@pobox.com Fri Apr 18 15:29:43 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 196eMT-0001xB-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:29:37 -0700
Received: from craig [209.42.200.60] by smtp.intrex.net
  (SMTPD32-7.13) id AC364B70278; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:29:10 -0400
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Y+NAI is not grammatical; jbofi'e is not always right (was Re: ynai)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:29:07 -0400
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFCEICDDAA.ragnarok@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20030418223134.GA6392@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.60]
X-archive-position: 4843
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

>Looking at the BNF, it doesn't look like it should be grammatical:

>indicator:	(UI | CAI) [NAI] | Y | DAhO | FUhO

>and the informal rules

>word:		[BAhE] any-word [indicators]
>any-word	: "any single word (no compound cmavo)"

>are the relevant parts.  The Y rule doesn't support NAI, so I think
>the author of jbofi'e probably cheated and implemented Y as a UI
>for easiness.

As I say, I do not read BNF. I couldn't find mention of Y+NAI in the Book,
so when I realized that y was in its own cmavo (I had mislearned it as a UI)
I checked jbofi'e to see whether it could take NAI. It could, but I found no
usage of that and no mention in the Book, so it is not mentioned in the
descriptive record I posted to the BPFK forum.