Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA03060 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 7 Dec 1994 21:49:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199412080249.AA03060@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5174; Wed, 07 Dec 94 21:44:48 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4480; Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:21:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 00:19:21 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 07 Dec 94 13:34:58 EST.) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 7 21:49:44 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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