Message-Id: <m0rFWbt-00006wC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 8 Dec 1994 00:19:21 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 07 Dec 94 13:34:58 EST.)
Content-Length: 900
Lines: 22

John:
> > One of the many likeable features of Lojban is that the grammar generates
> > every possible lexeme, even those with no sense. "borno" "pitsi" and
> > "burgo" are gismu & are grammatical - the only problem is they haven't
> > been assigned a sense. But within a la-sumti, this doesn't really
> > matter.
> I think this claim is false, or if true, is true only in an extended sense
> of "grammatical".
[...]
> (In other words, I consider "zoi borno scritchifizsted borno" to be
> ungrammatical, although the current machine parser accepts it happily.)

Then I think my claim is false then, since I thought I'd got this position
from you (albeit a long time ago). Soz. (I don't think any harm was done,
for I doubt anyone believed me...)

I take it then that while "la born" is grammatical, "la borno" isn't.
I presume that the current machine parser is not a grammaticality
tester.

---
And