From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jan 05 10:52:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:52:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EuaDp-0002Nc-Uk for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:52:26 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.194]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EuaDm-0002NV-UN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:52:25 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so2531474wri for ; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:52:22 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fnW1Moey9eqLg120dneX6YJoA8b6+Emugw60gXzFKpvZIhH/G1I/p/ouB5LhApehPEd08eh2pPQmISckXuSmQ3SRrBWnRBUCkTQl4qhHF/4XagGfQIHAhtN/Hr4O/be4V9Ea/vbRk4ST63GxT8uFq4I91DWjN7XdRhw3tLUw6aM= Received: by 10.54.114.4 with SMTP id m4mr4215330wrc; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.68.7 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:52:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560601051052j1323edc0od2c9c142937ec5c3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 15:52:21 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ki restriction? In-Reply-To: <20060105183545.GD4710@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060105183545.GD4710@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11001 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > The RefGram says: > > Note: Modals made with ``fi'o''-plus-selbri cannot be made sticky. > This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, restriction. > > in Chapter 9, Section 14. > > What does this mean? > > All three parsers accept "fi'o ki broda da brode". That's different, {ki} there is a tag on broda, not on brode. > 2 out of 3 > accept "fi'o broda ki da brode", so it doesn't seem to be a > grammatical restriction. That would be {fi'o broda [ku] ki da brode}. Here the term {ki da} is a separate term from the term {fi'o broda ku}. > I don't get it. This is a proposal for how the grammar of tags could be cleaned up: mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.