From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Aug 26 11:01:07 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 18:01:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 59659 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 18:01:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 18:01:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 18:01:04 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.65]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010826180102.IPBR15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:01:02 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: mine, etc.
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:00:15 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKEAEEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10108260054520.21589-100000@mail>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "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.