Re: [lojban] Re: Founders: sei restriction motivation?

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

Yeah, I didn't realize that the point was that you mostly don't have
to say "se'u".  Question withdrawn.

-Robin

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:43:00PM -0400, adam@wustl.edu wrote:
> I always thought it was a deliberate decision, not a grammar
> limitation.  What's the difference between your modified (trailing
> sumti accepting) SEI/SEhU and TO/TOI?  Further, any change would
> be non-backwards compatable, reparsing {sei la .alis. cusku mi
> gleki} like {sei la .alis. cusku be mi se'u gleki} instead of {sei
> la .alis. cusku se'u mi gleki}.  Unless I'm completely
> misunderstanding your question.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From:  Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
> Subj:  [lojban] Founders: sei restriction motivation?
> Date:  Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:46 pm
> Size:  554 bytes
> To:  lojban-list@lojban.org
> 
> 
> Is there any reason for the "cmavo in sei...se'u must be linked by
> be/bei/be'o" restriction?  Besides computer grammar issues, I mean.

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/