From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Mar 22 14:52:24 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 71247 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 22:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2004 22:52:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 22:52:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5YHN-0004t0-Vt for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:52:21 -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 1B5YFu-0004Dt-Ua; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:50:50 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5YFm-0004DR-CU for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:50:42 -0800 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:50:42 -0800 Message-ID: <20040322225042.GP30473@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040322034835.GJ4876@ccil.org> <20040322224659.80023.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040322224659.80023.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7293 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: Error in bnf.300 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21767 On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:46:59PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- John Cowan wrote: > > Rather than trying to discriminate, we just rejected this form > > altogether, which was made possible by treating i and ijek > > separately. > > Unfortunately that complicates the grammar and makes it more difficult > to learn. I'm probably not going to remember that you can't have a > prenex after ije/ibo/iseni'ibo/etc. I will, but only because of the amount of work I put in to debugging the problem. -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