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

From: Jorge "Llamb�as" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT)

la camgusmis cusku di'e

> > Why can we say {se BAI}, but not {se
> > FAhA}, for example? 
> 
> You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't make any sense?

Would you really fail to understand {se ne'i}, for example?
Hint:
bai = fi'o bapli
sebai = fi'o se bapli 
ne'i = fi'o selnenri 
sene'i = fi'o ???

> > Why can't we say {to'e cu'e}? 
> 
> You mean, besides the fact that it doesn't make any sense?

How can it not make sense? {cu'e} is a question that asks to be
replaced with something that makes the statement true, and many
things would be grammatical there replacing {cu'e}. For example,
{pu}. {to'e pu} is grammatical, so asking {to'e cu'e} makes sense,
for example when someone says {to'e pu} and you are not sure if you
heard the {pu} correctly.

> > 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). 

Ok, if that is the case, that would be a good, justified answer.
I admit I can't always tell why something makes LALR(1) fail, as
in this case. I don't understand why {pu na'e ka'e} would be
problematic.

> 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.

Or you don't use connected tenses much or at all, as is my case.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com