[lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- 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,
and any arbitrary and unjustified difference between them is bound
to complicate the language. Why can we say {se BAI}, but not {se FAhA},
for example? Why can't we say {to'e cu'e}? Why can't we say {pu na'e ka'e}?
Is anybody going to remember that you can't say {pu na'e ka'e}? 
(Or rather that it will parse as {pu ku na'e ka'e}.) Those 
are arbitrary rules that have to be learned, and restrictions with 
no justification are more difficult to learn than those that are 
justified.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com