From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jul 13 13:13:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 31493 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2006 20:03:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m34.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Jul 2006 20:03:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2006 20:03:36 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G17OZ-0000bo-PA for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:02:47 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G17NV-0000LC-Sd; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:43 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G17N5-0000Ky-Gv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:15 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G17N4-0000Kr-Gj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:15 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c30so387985pyc for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.38.17 with SMTP id q17mr1145699pyj; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607131301p7aa8bdc3o2dc7c7e3a515ac7d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:01:13 -0300 In-Reply-To: <737b61f30607131237h60c2e937m9282df01d1b8ccf1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30607131027l1306b033qd32a1ecd2f51281d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560607131150g5e15645aie1b7d9a56003b360@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30607131237h60c2e937m9282df01d1b8ccf1@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12190 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Do jbopre use terminators? (was: Is Lojban a CFG?) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=bAxjfFlDSMA9-RSKTzuQBAH7imgMi4PujdJe9sGdQPWkewYrzA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26617 On 7/13/06, Chris Capel wrote: > On 7/13/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > It is a myth that English has more parts of speech than Lojban's more > > than a hundred. > > Well, what I meant was that English tends rely more on differences in > parts of speech to communicate word grouping, whereas lojban depends, > more or less completely, on elidable terminators, and a few grouping > cmavo ({be}, {ke}, etc.). OK, I mentioned that it is a myth because the claim is found in several Lojban documents. I'm not sure I agree that English relies on parts of speech more than Lojban though, because almost every English part of speech has some Lojban equivalent that is similarly used. I think English relies mostly on intonation to disambiguate potential ambiguities. 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.