Re: [lojban] su'u

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 11:58:20PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> > From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
> >
> > So you're saying that 'do catlu be le nu mi klama' is _not_ ambiguous as
> > the grammar stands, and that 'le nu {sumti}' is illegal to make sure
> > that it's not ambiguous?
>
> Exactly.

Well, no.  It is not illegal because it is unambiguous, it is illegal
because it makes no sense to abstract a sumti.  What can be abstracted
is a bridi, and a bridi must (syntactically) contain a selbri, at
least the maximally-vague selbri "co'e".

--
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein