From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Jun 02 13:53:22 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVcja-0001lN-Dc for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:53:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20040602205243.56289.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:52:43 PDT Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: Grammar: li paxa se nanca To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040602174740.GS818@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8035 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Both jbofihe and the official parser choke on "li paxa se nanca" but are > fine with "li paxa nanca". Does anyone know why? LALR(1)? The parser gets to {li paxa se} and expects an operator? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/