From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Mar 28 11:11:04 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 5785 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2004 19:11:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2004 19:11:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2004 19:11:03 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B7fgU-00042f-Mm for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:11:02 -0800 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B7ffl-000421-AX; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:10:17 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B7ffd-00041i-6p for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:10:09 -0800 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:10:09 -0800 Message-ID: <20040328191009.GG6569@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <200403281403.04005.phma@webjockey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200403281403.04005.phma@webjockey.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7373 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: another sentence to try the parser on X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21847 On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > {le gerku pe naku cu klama ti} is valid according to jbofi'e, but {le > naku gerku cu klama ti} is not. Both my parser and the official one agree on both those points. The reason is simple: sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relative-clauses? / quantifier sumti If that last word was "term" and not "sumti", this would work. By way of comparison: relative-clause <- GOI free* term (GEhU free*)? / NOI free* subsentence (KUhO free*)? The "naku" case is in term, which is a *parent* for sumti. > I can't see what this genstura is good for, except to translate the > King's remarks at the beginning of the chapter. It's actually just a side effect of being able to use 'naku' in general. IMO, nothing much would be changed by moving NA KU to sumti, since term calls sumti anyways. I'd like to see a good reason, though, and as you point out there isn't one. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all from running out and eating all the cookies." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui