From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Nov 16 16:27:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 17 Nov 2001 00:27:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 24140 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2001 00:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Nov 2001 00:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.16) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2001 00:27:53 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:27:53 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.39 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:27:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.39] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ca'a pu (was: Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:27:53 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2001 00:27:53.0826 (UTC) FILETIME=[B27B5420:01C16EFE] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la lojbab cusku di'e >ca'a pu should never be acceptable even before a gi. It has to have the ku >(or have it inferred by YACCs error processing. {ca'a pu} can be acceptable without any {ku}: {pugi ko'a gi ko'e} is a , and {ca'a} is a , which can come directly in front of a sumti as a sumti tcita. What I don't understand is how can we use {pu} as a tag in front of the sumti {pugi ko'a gi ko'e}. It seems that the intended tag {pu} will be absorbed by the gek during preparsing! Is this so, or am I missing something? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp