Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:Jorge Llambías wrote:A: ie pei melbi donri B: naiObviously then I would have to "explain" the text as "ungrammatical". %^) It doesn't parse as it is, and the machine grammar doesn't recognize the possibility of multiple texts of that sort.So you think that conversation is invalid Lojban?
No.The formal grammar considers that to be invalid Lojban, since it does not recognize "A:" and "B:" or the existence of multiple speakers or multiple texts.
I consider that the formal grammar is incomplete, and necessarily so.
As B, I would feel obliged to use ".ienai go'i" if I wanted it to be "correct" Lojban, though I guess just "ienai" would work just as well in this instance. (If CLL has the above as an example, of course, I just say "we didn't think about that when John wrote it")I didn't check if it has the exact example, but "nai" is a valid text. What do you think it's for?
I don't remember what I had in mind (if anything). I just verified that TLI's grammar of the time did not have it. But it is possible that it was added before the Negation paper was written and was never really thought about. Perhaps it was as I think your example above implies, that it is a plausible answer to a pei question. (But remember that up until around 1992 we had a defined grammar for UI strings as well, which was removed as superfluous).
lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.