From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Feb 02 16:53:22 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 00:52:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 17096 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 00:52:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 00:52:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.67) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 00:52:55 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:52:54 -0800
Received: from 200.41.247.58 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;	Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:52:54 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.58]
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:52:54 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F67KtG47kcO8O7TRURq000040eb@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2001 00:52:54.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[A487F040:01C08D7B]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5294


> > I don't know about meaningless, but it would be ambiguous.
> > {le nu mi klama} could mean {(le nu mi) klama} and
> > {le nu (mi klama}.
>
>As a fragment, maybe, but mi catlu le nu do klama is quite clear.
>
>-Robin

But no matter how many clear cases there are, as long as
there is one ambiguous case we have ambiguity.

  do catlu be le nu mi klama

could parse as: do (catlu be le nu mi) klama
or as: do catlu be le nu (mi klama)

co'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.