From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Dec 04 05:07:12 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 78464 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.185)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:07:12 -0800
Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:07:12 GMT
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:07:12 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F1851r2lvA2JqwhqSx400007f65@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2002 13:07:12.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F425400:01C29B96]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2]
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17489


la lojbab cusku di'e

> > >pa re nai ci?
> > >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
> >
> >That could be used in this context, for example:
> >
> >A: pa re xu ci
> >B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
>
>Since I don't recognize the experimental cmavo, I can't comment.

How about:

A: pa re xu ci
B: i pa re nai ci i pa ba'e ze ci

>  Using an
>(apparent) contrast with an experimental cmavo is a rather weak
>justification for another experimental usage.

I suspect you're trying very hard to not understand.

>The reason "na je" has not implied grouping is because it is called out
>distinctly in the YACC grammar as a separate rule with no grouping, as is
>NA JA NAI.  But the parser rule is specifically that UI is absorbed into
>the preceding token, which indeed means that "(na) (je)" and "(na) (jenai)"
>will be considered identical grammatically.

Yes, and "(na) (ja)" is also identical to them grammatically. So
what? We could have had another UI that turned {je} into {ja} the
way {nai} turns {je} into {jenai}. I don't see the problem.

> >and nothing is broken by regularizing NAI.
>
>Except for the fact that NAI would not have consistent meaning in its
>various incarnations.

It doesn't already.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus