Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qVSPE-000023C; Wed, 3 Aug 94 01:33 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6490; Wed, 03 Aug 94 01:32:28 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6488; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 01:32:28 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3874; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 00:31:33 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:35:18 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Afterthought comparisons X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 454 Lines: 16 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