Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

la .and. cusku di'e
 
> I take it then that while "la born" is grammatical, "la borno" isn't.
 
I think that is correct, but I'm not issuing a ruling here.
 
> I presume that the current machine parser is not a grammaticality
> tester.
 
It's a buggy grammaticality tester.  It cheerfully accepts a variety of
malformed sentences because of its naive morphology modules
(it thinks "secusku" is a single le'avla, not a variant spelling of
"se cusku"); it does not handle "si", "sa", or "su"; it does not correctly
process constructs of the form:
 
        lo'u [Lojban junk] zoi le'u. [non-Lojban junk] .le'u [Lojban junk] le'u
 
and so on.  It is a compromise between correctness and easy implementability.
 
--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.