From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 15 05:57:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 15 Oct 2001 12:57:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 18301 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2001 12:57:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.222 with QMQP; 15 Oct 2001 12:57:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Oct 2001 12:57:03 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:34:09 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:07:13 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:06:39 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] da ce de ce di Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> John Cowan 10/15/01 03:16am >>> #cmeclax po'u le cmevi'u ke'umri scripsit: #> jbofi'e interprets "da ce de ce di" as {{da, de}, di}, which seems to me= to=20 #> leave no way to say {da, de, di}. #The *parse* of da ce de ce di is (da ce de) ce di, but that is not the #set-theoretic interpretation, which is {da, de, di}. To say anything #else, you have to use explicit set-forming selbri. This is a particularly clear example of the way official parses are 'bogus'= , in the sense that if a syntactician was faced with having to induce a grammar of lojban from the set of well-formed sentences, they would be most unlikely to come up with a grammar that yields parses at all like official ones.=20 It's useful to bear this in mind for a couple of reasons. First, when enqui= ring about the meaning of a construction, the official parse can't be taken= into evidence. Second, the official grammar is not the true one; that has = not yet been discovered and indeed does not exist yet. --And.