From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Apr 29 09:12:20 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 29 Apr 2003 16:12:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 74331 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 16:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2003 16:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 16:12:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AXiM-00089D-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:12:18 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AXiB-00088h-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:12:07 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web20511.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.175.150]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AXhw-00088U-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:11:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20030429161151.54722.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web20511.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:11:51 PDT Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20030429143319.GA5227@allusion.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5010 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 --- Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:35:14AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote: > > Well, to be fair, I'm no a jboskepre, but I have occaisionally written > > ka'enai by accident. (Simply not realizing that nai can't go there, even > > though it seems like it should.) > > It only seems like it should because you mislearned CAhA. CAhA are > not analagous to PU and FAhA; check your BNF. They seem analogous to me: simple-tense-modal = [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI] | [NAhE] (time [space]| space [time]) & CAhA [KI] | KI | CUhE PU is the nucleus of 'time' and FAhA of 'space'. So BAI, PU, FAhA, CAhA, KI, CUhE and others can all function as simple-tense-modal, and any arbitrary and unjustified difference between them is bound to complicate the language. Why can we say {se BAI}, but not {se FAhA}, for example? Why can't we say {to'e cu'e}? Why can't we say {pu na'e ka'e}? Is anybody going to remember that you can't say {pu na'e ka'e}? (Or rather that it will parse as {pu ku na'e ka'e}.) Those are arbitrary rules that have to be learned, and restrictions with no justification are more difficult to learn than those that are justified. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com