From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jun 19 15:51:46 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 27770 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2007 22:51:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Jun 2007 22:51:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.6) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2007 22:51:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 5704 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2007 22:50:23 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 19 Jun 2007 22:50:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I0mWh-0007kg-Vm for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:50:20 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I0mWD-0007iu-7x; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:49:56 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I0mQ1-0007ce-Vo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:43:26 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I0mPw-0007cC-Fg for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:43:25 -0700 Received: from COM (h460db455.area2.spcsdns.net [70.13.180.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id l5JMh3BK017187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:43:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200706192243.l5JMh3BK017187@express.cec.wustl.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:43:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: VersaMail(c) 1998-2004 3.1B, palmOne, Inc. X-Sender: adam@wustl.edu X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13740 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@wustl.edu X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.6 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: From: Reply-To: adam@wustl.edu Subject: [lojban] Re: Founders: sei restriction motivation? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=Z4F-RUEhIV9iFinQ6jdBMk4bL81QTgAKZWdos5RbpdcoJ5fwlA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28204 I always thought it was a deliberate decision, not a grammar limitation. What's the difference between your modified (trailing sumti accepting) SEI/SEhU and TO/TOI? Further, any change would be non-backwards compatable, reparsing {sei la .alis. cusku mi gleki} like {sei la .alis. cusku be mi se'u gleki} instead of {sei la .alis. cusku se'u mi gleki}. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your question. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Lee Powell Subj: [lojban] Founders: sei restriction motivation? Date: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:46 pm Size: 554 bytes To: lojban-list@lojban.org Is there any reason for the "cmavo in sei...se'u must be linked by be/bei/be'o" restriction? Besides computer grammar issues, I mean. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ 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. 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.