On 9/19/06, Michael Turniansky <turnip@bcpl.net> wrote:
Michael wrote: > > .i mi cpedu lenu mi penmi le la lojban. tavla > Does this parse properly without a ku after lojban because "tavla" can't be part of a cmevla sequence? (i.e. if we had said ".. le le lojbo tavla" that wouldn't be grammatical, we'd need "le le lojbo ku tavla")
Well I don't see any problem. "le le lojbo tavla" would be ambigous because you've got two gismu that run together and form a tanru. But "le la lojban. tavla" is quite clear. You've got the cmene "lojban" and "tavla" the gismu. They shouldn't form a tanru. I tested the "ku" form and the "ku"-less one in jboski and my formulation gave proper result, where the "ku" form didn't parse (hmm... dunno why).