From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhC84qTpBBoEGGp1IA@googlegroups.com Sat Jan 08 19:53:47 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PbmLe-0001wU-Ho; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:53:47 -0800 Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1sf10582112vws.16 for ; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:53:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=NNPhe2Y4Mz1jSO83UFuTvntX/CTd4UMGn3J7aZ4Fljg=; b=IM4MdNFyGOYPXcNgWWBbvXZny/1PcchTf2HAr6Pl6wZLLs7lfZXPxsUbMWm7vrjAv9 Xe7NK5rtsQPswIJFM93KZi/+DEU2/6jf+zDBImW/H7hjlzjomVhqVTg402S7mcfltp4e UrTvCeSo11DvGZDbiEACP+/s+K0HJlHAFRHRQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=UAaUzg/z0XnO3QogIcga5RkahR5H1A2Yp289Mfn/adJJjWEqsxlVpC/kbIIsUuYIU8 zqT+AEn9LPzMrKrZPr4LUvAnPtHv7RoRqn1kKQuCYtoxNkDZ64RNl2hNtG+I9gX4ddZP 6GXwa9JcJ5A6szLyTY/CAJG5V6XPYDvMsV98I= Received: by 10.220.180.137 with SMTP id bu9mr1121549vcb.48.1294545212090; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:53:32 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.89.74 with SMTP id d10ls2404943vcm.5.p; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:53:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.185.71 with SMTP id cn7mr11792627vcb.10.1294545107461; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:51:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.185.71 with SMTP id cn7mr11792626vcb.10.1294545107448; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:51:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com (mail-qw0-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l3si2436389vbr.5.2011.01.08.19.51.46; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.41; Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so18019238qwa.28 for ; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:51:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.86.149 with SMTP id s21mr23937370qcl.23.1294545105104; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:51:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.213.204 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 19:51:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9114501.161.1294150198377.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhy19> <7c0687a1-deba-495a-9760-95d1d0649423@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <20110105165231.GK17534@digitalkingdom.org> <20110105220532.GN17534@digitalkingdom.org> <673286.9022.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <294930.94884.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <401176.86876.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:51:44 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream? (was: Re: Lojban is *NOT* broken! Stop saying that! (was Re: [lojban] Re: Vote for the Future Global Language)) From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > {ce} is JOI, so yeah you need the {ku}. How the hell {mi broda ce brode} > differs from {mi broda je brode} and {mi broda joi brode} is anyone's guess > afaik. > > That reminds me, actually; why does the grammar refuse: > LE SELBRI JOI LE SELBRI > ? Why can't JOI realize "left side is sumti, right side is sumti, so ku is > implied on left side"? Does the grammar not have enough lookahead, or > something? > That's exactly right. The problem is that when you say "lo gerku joi ..." if the next thing you say is "mlatu" then you are still within a single sumti, So you have to explicitly close off the sumti. It's explicitly spelled out in the CLL. Now, whether it not that's NECESSARY for understanding an utterance is a different question. I'm reasonably certain that the next phrase after a JOI can unambiguously determine if you are joining sumti and selbri (since you can't join one to the other). Perhaps the main difficulty for a nonhuman would come in a sentence like "mi nelci lo mlatu joi denpa bu" (I like cats and the thing labelled ","), since denpa looks like a selbri until the bu comes around. But I could be wrong, if "bu" is processed differently. I'm not a parser kind of guy. --gejyspa -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.