Subject: Re: [lojban] Letteral, letter words and symbols.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:29:39 EST

In a message dated 3/4/2002 9:35:17 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> They can't follow {la} in the sense you intend.
> {la pa broda} and {la abu broda} are both grammatical,
> but they are sumti, not full bridi. {la pa cu broda} and
> {la abu cu broda} are not grammatical.
> 
> To use {la} we'd have to say something like {la pav} and {la abus}.
> 

Ah well, some day I'll either learn how to get actual parses from one or the 
other parser or will remember that the fact that a parser says something 
parses doesn't mean that they parse the way I intended them to. But, {la abu 
cu lerfu} does parse on jbofi'e in some way or other. It does not on the LLG 
parser, with the usual unintelligible note.
So much for trying to make an intelligible system out of all this. I guess we 
just have to deal with it, quirks and all. It is, after all, somewhat better 
than English, though less good than it should be (loCCCan3!)