From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue Aug  2 19:39:15 1994
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA28289
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Tue, 2 Aug 1994 19:39:10 -0400
Message-Id: <199408022339.AA28289@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9306; Tue, 02 Aug 94 19:40:39 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4901; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:35:56 -0400
Date:         Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:35:18 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Afterthought comparisons
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

la veion cusku di'e

> Afterthought comparisons of the form
>
>   (1) *mi nelci ti semaubo ta
>
> are, of course, theoretically possible but cannot be realized
> due to parser limitations as they would require too deep a
> look-ahead.

If I remember correctly, John Cowan checked whether this would
introduce any ambiguities and the conclusion was that it would not.
If there's no problem with the parser, I don't see why it shouldn't
be allowed.

Jorge