From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 05 08:55:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 5 Mar 2002 16:55:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 74566 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 17:29:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 17:29:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 17:29:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.114.d658134 (4509) for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:29:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <114.d658134.29b50903@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:29:39 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Letteral, letter words and symbols. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_114.d658134.29b50903_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13517 --part1_114.d658134.29b50903_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/2002 9:35:17 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > They can't follow {la} in the sense you intend. > {la pa broda} and {la abu broda} are both grammatical, > but they are sumti, not full bridi. {la pa cu broda} and > {la abu cu broda} are not grammatical. > > To use {la} we'd have to say something like {la pav} and {la abus}. > Ah well, some day I'll either learn how to get actual parses from one or the other parser or will remember that the fact that a parser says something parses doesn't mean that they parse the way I intended them to. But, {la abu cu lerfu} does parse on jbofi'e in some way or other. It does not on the LLG parser, with the usual unintelligible note. So much for trying to make an intelligible system out of all this. I guess we just have to deal with it, quirks and all. It is, after all, somewhat better than English, though less good than it should be (loCCCan3!) --part1_114.d658134.29b50903_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/2002 9:35:17 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


They can't follow {la} in the sense you intend.
{la pa broda} and {la abu broda} are both grammatical,
but they are sumti, not full bridi. {la pa cu broda} and
{la abu cu broda} are not grammatical.

To use {la} we'd have to say something like {la pav} and {la abus}.


Ah well, some day I'll either learn how to get actual parses from one or the other parser or will remember that the fact that a parser says something parses doesn't mean that they parse the way I intended them to.  But, {la abu cu lerfu} does parse on jbofi'e in some way or other.  It does not on the LLG parser, with the usual unintelligible note.
So much for trying to make an intelligible system out of all this. I guess we just have to deal with it, quirks and all.  It is, after all, somewhat better than English, though less good than it should be (loCCCan3!) --part1_114.d658134.29b50903_boundary--