From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jun 18 16:19:43 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BbSe0-0007OZ-5q
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:36 -0700
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:36 -0700
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: fragment + i-jek
Message-ID: <20040618231936.GT7569@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040618021600.GG7569@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040618052316.GA24048@ccil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040618052316.GA24048@ccil.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 8103
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:23:16AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> 
> > I'm assuming the official parser is wrong; fragments cannot be
> > joined by ijeks, but wanted to check.
> 
> It's wrong, or rather obsolete.  We used not to distinguish between i
> and ijek, grammatically, and the fixes to the official parser were
> lost.

OK.  Slightly wierder one:

lenu broda kei cu zemucu'o i ja lenu brode

That seems to be wrong, but why?  It's fine without the 'ja'.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***  I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/  ***  loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi