From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Apr 06 12:49:59 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41903.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BAwa2-00030C-6K for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:49:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20040406194922.13318.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41903.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:49:22 PDT Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: Opinions on "mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan." To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040406191431.GI5197@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7451 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 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > This sentence: > > mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan. > > is given as an example in the book, yet prima facia it's wrong: there is > no other sentence starter to erase back to. What exactly is the rule for sa? Can't it be "erase back until you find a word of the same selamho as the word following sa, or to the beginning of text if no such word is found"? > I don't really think the incorrectness of that text is arguable > (although I'd love to see someone argue it). What I'm wondering is do > people think that allowing "sa I" or "sa NIhO" at the beginning of text > is a reasonable extension? It would be clearly labelled as > non-standard, at least in the documentation. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't see a problem with sa at the beginning of text, it is pointless but harmless. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/