From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Apr 29 09:39:44 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web20511.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.175.150])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19AY8g-0000GS-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:39:30 -0700
Message-ID: <20030429163929.62063.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web20511.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:39:29 PDT
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20030429162617.GH20953@digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 5017
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


la camgusmis cusku di'e

> > Why can we say {se BAI}, but not {se
> > FAhA}, for example? 
> 
> You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't make any sense?

Would you really fail to understand {se ne'i}, for example?
Hint:
      bai = fi'o bapli
    sebai = fi'o se bapli 
     ne'i = fi'o selnenri 
   sene'i = fi'o ???

> > Why can't we say {to'e cu'e}? 
> 
> You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't make any sense?

How can it not make sense? {cu'e} is a question that asks to be
replaced with something that makes the statement true, and many
things would be grammatical there replacing {cu'e}. For example,
{pu}. {to'e pu} is grammatical, so asking {to'e cu'e} makes sense,
for example when someone says {to'e pu} and you are not sure if you
heard the {pu} correctly.

> > Why can't we say {pu na'e ka'e}? Is anybody going to remember that
> > you can't say {pu na'e ka'e}? (Or rather that it will parse as {pu
> > ku na'e ka'e}.) 
> 
> For the same reason you can't say "pu bai klama": LALR(1). 

Ok, if that is the case, that would be a good, justified answer.
I admit I can't always tell why something makes LALR(1) fail, as
in this case. I don't understand why {pu na'e ka'e} would be
problematic.

> If you
> haven't gotten used to doing "pu je bai klama", you either are new,
> or aren't interested in doing proper formal lojban anyways.

Or you don't use connected tenses much or at all, as is my case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com