Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb)

From: Jorge "Llamb�as" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:11:51 -0700 (PDT)

--- Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]> 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