From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Jun 18 17:30:48 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 34627 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2004 00:30:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Jun 2004 00:30:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2004 00:30:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BbTks-0006IM-JH for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:30:46 -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 1BbTkJ-0005yo-Tk; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:30:12 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41905.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.156]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BbTk3-0005b4-6e for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:29:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20040619002924.87876.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.43.213.26] by web41905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:29:24 PDT Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:29:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040618231936.GT7569@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8106 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: fragment + i-jek X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22555 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > 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'. Same thing, isn't it? {le nu brode} is a fragment. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail