On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:11:51AM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote:
>
> --- Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:35:14AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote:
> > > Well, to be fair, I'm no a jboskepre, but I have occaisionally written
> > > ka'enai by accident. (Simply not realizing that nai can't go there, even
> > > though it seems like it should.)
> >
> > It only seems like it should because you mislearned CAhA. CAhA are
> > not analagous to PU and FAhA; check your BNF.
>
> They seem analogous to me:
>
> simple-tense-modal = [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI]
> | [NAhE] (time [space]| space [time]) & CAhA [KI]
> | KI
> | CUhE
>
> PU is the nucleus of 'time' and FAhA of 'space'. So BAI, PU, FAhA,
> CAhA, KI, CUhE and others can all function as simple-tense-modal,
[...]
Err, but if you look at that rule there, they aren't analagous.
You can't say mi ne'i ka'e pu ca'a klama. Any given tense ends
with the modal aspect (or the ki) and you need to join them with a
connective like je.
This makes perfect sense if you think about it.
I think you mentioned {mi pu na'eka'e broda}. This doesn't make
sense either, since either the whole tense should be negated or
not. That sentence could either mean {puku mi na'eka'e broda} or
{mi na'e pu ka'e broda}. It could've been allowed if one of those
meanings were required, I suppose, but it's not obvious which it
should be, and so I don't see what allowing it gets you (I suppose
that you could argue that if it has the puku meaning it saves you
a syllable, though).
(And I think robin's wrong that this is required for LALR(1)).
--
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:
pgp00465.pgp
Description: PGP signature