From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Aug 26 11:01:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 18:01:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 59659 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 18:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 18:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 18:01:04 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.65]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010826180102.IPBR15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:01:02 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: mine, etc. Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:00:15 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10137 John: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > Indeed, it seems confusing to me to have {me ... me'u MOI} for either > > the snowball in hell or the n+1th. {me...me'u} should yield a selbri and > > hence not be combinable with MOI. I'd prefer to see {mo'e ... MOI} > > for the snowball in hell, and (tho I don't know if it's grammatical) > > {vei n+1 (ve'o) MOI}. > > Those would, indeed, have been better, but MOI is recognized by the > preprocessor, and can't take recursive syntax like a a whole mekso. > The me...me'u MOI was a kluge to make the semantics possible. Out of interest, why is this? Is it because otherwise MOI wouldn't be LALR1? What about if MOI preceded the Operand? --And.