From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 13 12:25:17 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 17314 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2004 19:25:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Apr 2004 19:25:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2004 19:25:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BDTX0-0003F7-Af for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:25:14 -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 1BDTW2-0003E0-0C; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:24:14 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BDTVr-0003Dh-4Y for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:24:03 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:24:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20040413192403.GQ21966@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040413164011.GK21966@digitalkingdom.org> <20040413184301.GD7199@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040413184301.GD7199@ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7542 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: On parser extensions. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22016 On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 02:43:01PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > But anyway, there is now a standard way to say mex+MOI, namely "me li > pabi'ipazeboi va'e". Either boi or me'u is required here to keep the > preparser quiet. The official parser doesn't know what va'e is, so I'm testing with moi. It is as you say. The grouping is the same for boi or me'u. Interestingly, the official parser accepts "me li pa su'i pa ze moi", but this appears to be due to a bug: ({ <[pa ze] moi>} VAU) -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi