From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Dec 04 05:07:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 78464 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.185) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 13:07:12 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:07:12 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:07:12 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:07:12 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2002 13:07:12.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F425400:01C29B96] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la lojbab cusku di'e > > >pa re nai ci? > > >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser) > > > >That could be used in this context, for example: > > > >A: pa re xu ci > >B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci > >Since I don't recognize the experimental cmavo, I can't comment. How about: A: pa re xu ci B: i pa re nai ci i pa ba'e ze ci > Using an >(apparent) contrast with an experimental cmavo is a rather weak >justification for another experimental usage. I suspect you're trying very hard to not understand. >The reason "na je" has not implied grouping is because it is called out >distinctly in the YACC grammar as a separate rule with no grouping, as is >NA JA NAI. But the parser rule is specifically that UI is absorbed into >the preceding token, which indeed means that "(na) (je)" and "(na) (jenai)" >will be considered identical grammatically. Yes, and "(na) (ja)" is also identical to them grammatically. So what? We could have had another UI that turned {je} into {ja} the way {nai} turns {je} into {jenai}. I don't see the problem. > >and nothing is broken by regularizing NAI. > >Except for the fact that NAI would not have consistent meaning in its >various incarnations. It doesn't already. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus