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

[Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

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".

The classic example of tense-ke before a gek is in the brochure translation 
of Occam's razor.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org




To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/