On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:48:58PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> la camgusmis cusku di'e
>
> > My new example of how insane this is is
> >
> > nai nai nai mi nai nelci nai nai nai
> >
> > which would be legal if this change was made.
>
> nai nai nai na'e bo mi na'e na'e na'e nelci
>
> is currently grammatical (and equally bad style).
But
broda .i nai nai nai na'e bo mi na'e na'e na'e nelci .i broda
is not.
And neither is "mi nai" for that matter. Or how about strange
things like "leka klama keinai cu xamgu".
Anyway, I dunno why the text rule allows a nai at the start, but
you're ignoring camgusmis' point by focusing on that---namely that
if nai is in UI, it can be used *anywhere*, and thus it should be
a word which makes sense to be used anywhere (like "ui").
Other than the problem with making too many sentences legal, I would
complain that it complicates the parse tree of things like {mi
na.enai do klama}. The first "na" is handled at the same level as
the .e and as part of the structure there. But the second "nai"
(if in UI) is handled at a lower level of the parser (where it
allows UIs after any word).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00457.pgp
Description: PGP signature