[lojban] Re: Robin Confused (was Re: Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1))

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:24:30AM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> At 03:15 PM 3/29/04 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >I'm sorry, I must be missing something.  In the last two cases,
> >unless I'm seriously confused, that's just a tense binding to a
> >selbri. Neither of them require a 'ku' to be inserted to parse,
> >whereas the example I gave does:
> >
> >     mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja
> >
> >versus
> >
> >     mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja
> >
> >Only the latter is accepted by the current parser, but all of your
> >examples are accepted, and using completely different functionality.
> >I don't see how my examples relate to your examples.
> 
> If the question is what the syntactic rule invalidating the first is,
> then look at .300 gek_sentence_54, second line.  To tense a gek'd
> bridi-tail, you need "pu ke" and not just bare "pu".

Right, and my point was that the only *possible* valid interpretation of
'pu' there, without 'ke', is as 'pu ku'.

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui