Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:51:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801212351.SAA15014@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Rick Nylander Sender: Lojban list From: Rick Nylander Subject: Beginner question on sumti construction X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan X-UIDL: fb86e74e54ae5f77f55b49b4900ab6e7 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1377 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jan 22 12:19:23 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - Sorry I can't be more concise with my question. Perhaps it indicates the level of my confusion. Jorge wrote: {le nuzba be le mi nunmorsi cu dukse} I thought that the purpose of {be} to avoid putting {ku} at the end of the sumti, although it also seemed unnecessary. But leaving off the {be} causes {le nuzba} and {le mi nunmorsi} to parse as separate arguments. I thought that {le nubza le mi nunmorsi ku ku cu dukse} would be equivalent, but it doesn't parse. I'm assuming that the parser I downloaded is a satisfactory learning tool. Obviously, there's something that I missed regarding sumti construction. Is the only way to put arguments into a descriptive sumti to use {be}? And wrote {lo ci rorci be me}, though I assume he meant {be mi}. This appears to be a single sumti for demonstrative purposes, and parses as such (if I read the parser output correctly). I thought {lo ci rorci mi} would be correct, but it parses very differently (as 2 sumti). This make me think that this must be the rule of thumb for sumti construction and parsing: If it *could* be the end of the sumti, it is. But then, tell me why this parses correctly: {i la'a le nu la caryn. ba ctuca loi verba cu zvati le ckule} "Probably, Sharon will teach children at a school" (my first attempt at a lojban sentence of any worth) Yeah, go ahead and correct me on it :-) deizd and kynfuzd