From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Apr 29 17:21:54 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.111])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19AfLZ-0003NL-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:21:18 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-120.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.120])
	by lmsmtp01.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194E21E783
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 02:20:45 +0200 (MEST)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:20:42 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEBBHPAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
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: <5.2.0.9.0.20030428212623.0390d4d0@pop.east.cox.net>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis
X-archive-position: 5025
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Robert LeChevalier:
> At 04:36 PM 4/28/03 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > > la camgusmis cusku di'e
> > >
> > > > My new example of how insane this is is
> > > >
> > > > nai nai nai mi nai nelci nai nai nai
> > > >
> > > > which would be legal if this change was made
> > >
> > >   nai nai nai na'e bo mi na'e na'e na'e nelci
> > >
> > > is currently grammatical (and equally bad style)
> >
> >As is "jai jai jai na'e jai je'a klesi jai cupra", which was offered by a
> >random sentence generator, and defended by Jay as being grammatical, and
> >yet now we're supposed to get our panties twisted at the fear of "nai nai
> >nai"
>
> That one bit of nonsense passes the parser is no argument to make more
> nonsense pass the parser

I agree. It's an argument to make both bits of nonsense fail the parser.
A parser that passes nonsense is nonsense.

--And.