At 06:49 PM 12/18/01 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 12:14 AM 12/18/01 -0500, Rob Speer wrote: > > >Is there any particular reason for this? Similarly, for the CAhA selma'o > >and the fact that CAhA + NAI is ungrammatical? > > Probably it is ungrammatical either because a) we never thought of adding a > rule for CAhA+NAI because we couldn't think of what such a thing might > mean This seems to bias s-w effects, doesn't it?
Not likely, since there has been no plan to examine S-W effects based on the tense system.
-- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org