From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Tue Apr 29 20:17:26 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Ai5l-0008Gm-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:17:09 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3U3T0sr010824 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:29:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h3U3T0ql010823 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:29:00 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:29:00 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) Message-ID: <20030430032900.GA10708@allusion.net> References: <20030429143319.GA5227@allusion.net> <20030429161151.54722.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J/dobhs11T7y2rNN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030429161151.54722.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 5038 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:11:51AM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote: >=20 > --- Jordan DeLong wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:35:14AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote: > > > Well, to be fair, I'm no a jboskepre, but I have occaisionally written > > > ka'enai by accident. (Simply not realizing that nai can't go there, e= ven > > > though it seems like it should.) > >=20 > > It only seems like it should because you mislearned CAhA. CAhA are > > not analagous to PU and FAhA; check your BNF. >=20 > They seem analogous to me: >=20 > simple-tense-modal =3D [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI] > | [NAhE] (time [space]| space [time]) & CAhA [KI] > | KI > | CUhE=20 >=20 > PU is the nucleus of 'time' and FAhA of 'space'. So BAI, PU, FAhA, > CAhA, KI, CUhE and others can all function as simple-tense-modal, [...] Err, but if you look at that rule there, they aren't analagous. You can't say mi ne'i ka'e pu ca'a klama. Any given tense ends with the modal aspect (or the ki) and you need to join them with a connective like je. This makes perfect sense if you think about it. I think you mentioned {mi pu na'eka'e broda}. This doesn't make sense either, since either the whole tense should be negated or not. That sentence could either mean {puku mi na'eka'e broda} or {mi na'e pu ka'e broda}. It could've been allowed if one of those meanings were required, I suppose, but it's not obvious which it should be, and so I don't see what allowing it gets you (I suppose that you could argue that if it has the puku meaning it saves you a syllable, though). (And I think robin's wrong that this is required for LALR(1)). --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD4DBQE+r0L7DrrilS51AZ8RAqNwAJit/pAY+tK0l6HjBPA0fM8i4imcAKDMlh6U HyB60wDVDJwbV9JtDwE4eQ== =WJql -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN--