From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Mar 30 00:03:01 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 68167 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2004 08:02:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Mar 2004 08:02:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2004 08:02:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B8ECg-0004Bn-5j for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:02:34 -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 1B8EBw-0003Q7-Dg; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:01:48 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap1.epfl.ch ([128.178.50.4]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B8EBk-0002xB-Am for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:01:36 -0800 Received: from imap.epfl.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.epfl.ch (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HVD00ERTQ9SHU@imap1.epfl.ch> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:01:04 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [128.178.164.5] by imap1.epfl.ch (mshttpd); Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:01:04 +0200 Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:01:04 +0200 Message-id: <19315a1987ed.1987ed19315a@imap.epfl.ch> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal X-archive-position: 7399 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: gregory.dyke@epfl.ch X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: GREGORY DYKE From: GREGORY DYKE Reply-To: gregory.dyke@epfl.ch Subject: [lojban] Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21873 cu'u la xorxes > I too prefer the latter, on the assumption that the special > treatment given to na will eventually be dropped. Otherwise we > end up with {ta roroi na xagji} having to mean the same as > {ta na roroi xagji}, which should be different. what is the current state? I presume that, at the moment, these parse as: naku ta roroiku xagji and ta naku roroiku xagji both meaning "it is not true that "that" is always hungry. I think this is good. The particular semantics of na, although annoying and sometimes intractible can also be ummm... (no, not useful!) err... interesting... does ta roroi naku xagji mean "for all times, it is not true that "that" is hungry"? Greg