From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 29 09:26:44 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 16:26:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 32323 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 16:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2003 16:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 16:26:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AXwJ-0008SJ-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:43 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AXwB-0008Rs-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:35 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AXvt-0008RV-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:26:17 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) Message-ID: <20030429162617.GH20953@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030429143319.GA5227@allusion.net> <20030429161151.54722.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030429161151.54722.qmail@web20511.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 5014 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:11:51AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > 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? You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't make any sense? > Why can't we say {to'e cu'e}? You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't make any sense? > 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}.) For the same reason you can't say "pu bai klama": LALR(1). If you haven't gotten used to doing "pu je bai klama", you either are new, or aren't interested in doing proper formal lojban anyways. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi