From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 22 15:29:36 2001
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 22:29:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 48219 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 22:29:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 22:29:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailgw3.netvision.net.il) (194.90.1.11)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 22:29:34 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (ras8-p82.rvt.netvision.net.il [62.0.181.211])
  by mailgw3.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA13581
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:27:29 +0300 (IDT)
Message-ID: <006301c143be$9a2be620$40b5003e@oemcomputer>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <v03007803b7d2b7ff9c2b@[128.195.186.89]>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:28:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>

la nitcion. cusku di'e

> I was about to fulminate "what a dumbass grammar rule", but the
worst of it
> is, no, it's an eminently sensible grammar rule: --- you do want to
be able
> to say {ci .a vo prenu}. (Though I'd completely forgotten that you
could.)
>
> The thing about {li 20 .enai li 18}, of course, is that it *would*
be
> correct... if Lojban wasn't LALR1.

.i xu le nu le catni se zanru ke gensu'a lanli mutmi'i cu se jicmu la
me LALR1 cu pagbu le se catni nu bangu nalcne .i ca le nu da finti lo
se jicmu be na'ebo la me LALR1 be'o poi pilno le mintu gerna zi'epoi
zanru lo'u li 20 enai li 18 le'u e lo'u le broda joi le brode le'u kei
xu le di'u jufra cu gerna drani

.i ta'o lu vei ci .a vo prenu li'u .u'i

mu'o mi'e .adam.