[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] TECH: Question about grammar of sumti
- To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: [lojban] TECH: Question about grammar of sumti
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 20:31:43 -0300
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=uPZGtlmBcqd2/iuSfUd7zstBWitSzp6mwVFREOWXTveTYcDCqdQdRnbwb0bv9pVpIfsx1GBIgNy32C6j0OWCT07BhWOoeIFqp9WQe3UL5U9FM53EFrzmJP5JNppH50lx7v5RDIZi4cjeAjYrdCWIGicwRUbfIlxqvDhXyKIqYBE=
- Reply-to: jjllambias@gmail.com
If I'm reading the formal grammars correctly, something like
{lo ci ko'a .e ko'e} will be parsed as {lo ci (ko'a .e ko'e)},
and not as {(lo ci ko'a) .e ko'e}, as I would have expected.
Am I correct? Was this intentional? If yes, what does
{lo ci (ko'a .e ko'e)} mean?
ki'e mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.