From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jul 08 10:42:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 10005 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2006 17:19:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jul 2006 17:19:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2006 17:19:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzGRs-00058w-5L for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:18:32 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzGR7-000584-CS; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:47 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzGQe-00057k-7P for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:16 -0700 Received: from mx.211.ru ([193.238.131.194]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FzGQa-00057Z-JI for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:17:15 -0700 Received: from localhost (mx.211.ru [193.238.131.194]) by mx.211.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F26EBCE4 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:19:05 +0700 (NOVST) Received: from mx.211.ru ([193.238.131.194]) by localhost (mx.211.ru [193.238.131.194]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91277-08 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:19:03 +0700 (NOVST) Received: from mail.211.ru (mail [10.5.1.2]) by mx.211.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91461EBC58 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:19:03 +0700 (NOVST) Received: from localhost (host-102-2-129.211.ru [10.102.2.129]) by mail.211.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EA75C15 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 00:28:45 +0700 (NOVST) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 00:17:00 +0700 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.5.30) Professional X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1565464009.20060709001700@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <2d3df92a0607081000q4e1436a3pd1712372a9060651@mail.gmail.com> References: <1836234499.20060702070602@mail.ru> <78904337.20060705215056@mail.ru> <2d3df92a0607080904j65e6faa8o8501246ad0e1191d@mail.gmail.com> <678456385.20060708232944@mail.ru> <2d3df92a0607081000q4e1436a3pd1712372a9060651@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------1519B6E36EC8C91" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 11994 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ybatura@mail.ru X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Yanis Batura From: Yanis Batura Reply-To: ybatura@mail.ru Subject: [lojban] Re: Language-independent humor X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=iDqefDwfpjQV19a0lJu2lYGkUb3JFXc7eLy6j-lug4IhciRSiQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26420 ------------1519B6E36EC8C91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09.07.2006, 0:00, HeliodoR wrote: > Oh God in Heaven (in case You exist), jbofi'e cannot parse {lo be lo [selbri1] ku [selbri2]}! > It recognizes {lo [selbri2] be lo [selbri1]} only. > I that a glitch? Or do I not know something about the grammar of {be} I should? > > Otherwise it's completely grammatical. I only missed one {be'o}. :) > Correction: {i lo mamta be lo rirni be mi be'o be'o li'o}. I read the CLL 5:7 about {be} attachments. It wasn't mentioned there that we can pull {be} in front of the selbri. I am not an expert in formal grammars, but there we can find an answer to this point. Jorge, what will you say? mi'e .ianis. --------------------- Lojban: A Language With *Intelligent* Design ------------1519B6E36EC8C91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 09.07.2006, 0:00, HeliodoR wrote:

 

> Oh God in Heaven (in case You exist), jbofi'e cannot parse {lo be lo [selbri1] ku [selbri2]}!

 

> It recognizes {lo [selbri2] be lo [selbri1]} only.

 

> I that a glitch? Or do I not know something about the grammar of {be} I should?

 

>  

 

> Otherwise it's completely grammatical. I only missed one {be'o}. :)

 

> Correction: {i lo mamta be lo rirni be mi be'o be'o li'o}.

 

I read the CLL 5:7 about {be} attachments. It wasn't mentioned there that we can pull {be} in front of the selbri. I am not an expert in formal grammars, but there we can find an answer to this point.


Jorge, what will you say?



mi'e .ianis.


---------------------

Lojban: A Language With *Intelligent* Design

------------1519B6E36EC8C91--