From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Nov 14 06:01:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 14:01:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 14688 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 14:01:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 14:01:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 14:01:52 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:38:03 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:14:03 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:13:52 +0000 To: jjllambias , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12125 >>> Jorge Llambias 11/14/01 12:28am >>> #>And why does CAhA have different grammar? It is grammatically correct to #>say {mi pu ca'a broda} but not {mi ca'a pu broda}. # #Both are grammatically correct, but the second one parses #as {mi ca'aku pu broda}. ... which makes them synonymous, with pu having scope over ca'a in both cases. So to get ca'a with scope over pu, we have to say {mi ca'a (ku) pu *ku* broda}? --And.