From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Fri Feb 02 17:44:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 01:44:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 30135 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 01:44:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 01:44:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 01:44:32 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA24917; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:50:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:50:12 -0500 To: Jorge Llambias Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u Message-ID: <20010202205012.C23184@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: Jorge Llambias , lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jjllambias@hotmail.com on Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 12:52:54AM +0000 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 12:52:54AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > I don't know about meaningless, but it would be ambiguous. > > > {le nu mi klama} could mean {(le nu mi) klama} and > > > {le nu (mi klama}. > > > >As a fragment, maybe, but mi catlu le nu do klama is quite clear. > > > >-Robin > > But no matter how many clear cases there are, as long as > there is one ambiguous case we have ambiguity. > > do catlu be le nu mi klama > > could parse as: do (catlu be le nu mi) klama > or as: do catlu be le nu (mi klama) If that were true, then do catlu be le nu mi would parse, but it doesn't, at least not in jbofi'e. -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP