Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA14836 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:37:57 -0500 Received: by access2.digex.net id AA26118 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:37:50 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412121537.AA26118@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:37:49 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199412080249.AA03060@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 8, 94 00:19:21 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 790 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 12 10:38:01 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la .and. cusku di'e > I take it then that while "la born" is grammatical, "la borno" isn't. I think that is correct, but I'm not issuing a ruling here. > I presume that the current machine parser is not a grammaticality > tester. It's a buggy grammaticality tester. It cheerfully accepts a variety of malformed sentences because of its naive morphology modules (it thinks "secusku" is a single le'avla, not a variant spelling of "se cusku"); it does not handle "si", "sa", or "su"; it does not correctly process constructs of the form: lo'u [Lojban junk] zoi le'u. [non-Lojban junk] .le'u [Lojban junk] le'u and so on. It is a compromise between correctness and easy implementability. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.