From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 06 11:57:49 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 24973 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2004 18:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Apr 2004 18:56:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2004 18:56:45 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAvkZ-0001mP-Kf for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:56:43 -0700 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 1BAvjk-0001lc-UJ; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:55:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAvjc-0001lO-Hm for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:55:44 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:55:44 -0700 Message-ID: <20040406185544.GD5197@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org> <20040329070110.GO6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20040330101942.030a6df0@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040330101942.030a6df0@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7446 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: Robin Confused (was Re: Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1)) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21918 On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:24:30AM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > At 03:15 PM 3/29/04 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >I'm sorry, I must be missing something. In the last two cases, > >unless I'm seriously confused, that's just a tense binding to a > >selbri. Neither of them require a 'ku' to be inserted to parse, > >whereas the example I gave does: > > > > mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja > > > >versus > > > > mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja > > > >Only the latter is accepted by the current parser, but all of your > >examples are accepted, and using completely different functionality. > >I don't see how my examples relate to your examples. > > If the question is what the syntactic rule invalidating the first is, > then look at .300 gek_sentence_54, second line. To tense a gek'd > bridi-tail, you need "pu ke" and not just bare "pu". Right, and my point was that the only *possible* valid interpretation of 'pu' there, without 'ke', is as 'pu ku'. -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