RE: [lojban] RE: mine, etc.

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

John:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > Indeed, it seems confusing to me to have {me ... me'u MOI} for either 
> > the snowball in hell or the n+1th. {me...me'u} should yield a selbri and
> > hence not be combinable with MOI. I'd prefer to see {mo'e ... MOI}
> > for the snowball in hell, and (tho I don't know if it's grammatical)
> > {vei n+1 (ve'o) MOI}.
> 
> Those would, indeed, have been better, but MOI is recognized by the
> preprocessor, and can't take recursive syntax like a a whole mekso.
> The me...me'u MOI was a kluge to make the semantics possible.

Out of interest, why is this? Is it because otherwise MOI wouldn't be
LALR1? What about if MOI preceded the Operand?
--And.