[lojban] Re: more grammar discussion

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 19:28, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK, what about this one:
>>>
>>>> sumti-tail-1 <- selbri relatives? / quantifier selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti
>>>
>>> becomes
>>>
>>> sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti
>>
>> What happens with the sumti-tail "pa moi"?
>
> Hmm. I see your point.

Actually, I don't really have a point. "quantifier" is:

quantifier <- number !MOI BOI? free* / VEI free* mex VEhO? free*

So "quantifier?" won't grab the "number" of "number MOI". Your
simplification should work.


>But check this out:
>
>> selbri-6 <- tanru-unit (BO free* selbri-6)? / NAhE? free* guhek selbri gik selbri-6
>
> Another instance of gek (or guhek) not letting its second clause as
> flexible as its first.

Yes, another ugliness.

mu'o 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.