From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jun 18 16:20:28 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 66051 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2004 23:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Jun 2004 23:20:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2004 23:20:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BbSej-0007PJ-DD for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:20:21 -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 4.32) id 1BbSeA-0007Ol-2S; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:46 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BbSe0-0007OZ-5q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:36 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20040618231936.GT7569@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040618021600.GG7569@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040618052316.GA24048@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040618052316.GA24048@ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 8103 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: fragment + i-jek X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22552 On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:23:16AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > I'm assuming the official parser is wrong; fragments cannot be > > joined by ijeks, but wanted to check. > > It's wrong, or rather obsolete. We used not to distinguish between i > and ijek, grammatically, and the fixes to the official parser were > lost. OK. Slightly wierder one: lenu broda kei cu zemucu'o i ja lenu brode That seems to be wrong, but why? It's fine without the 'ja'. -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