From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Feb 02 20:06:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 04:06:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 967 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 04:06:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 04:06:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 04:06:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1346Xr21042 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 23:06:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 23:06:32 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u In-Reply-To: <20010202205012.C23184@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > 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. la jbofi'e ca'anai tercupra jimpe ki'u le du'u le cmavo be zo nu cu mapti cei broda le bridi .enai le sumti .i le xusra pe la xorxes. onai broda ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!