Re: [lojban] Re: "la" rule

["Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>]

John E Clifford wrote:

> But here the range of ambiguity is so small as to allow a short dirty run through alternatives  --
> or so it seems intuitively.
>   
But that way lieth madness.  After all, humans also can parse English, 
and with sufficiently advanced software programs can too, so why are we 
wasting our time with Lojban?  Anyway, it's simple enough to cook up a 
pathological example like

lalal. lalal. lalal. lalal. klama

Anywhere from one to too many of the places of klama filled, in a 
variety of ways: {la lal.} {la lal. lalal.}, etc etc... Considering that 
there are lujvo with >5 places, and some people consider {du} to have a 
potentially infinite place structure, this isn't really acceptable.

~mark