From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Feb 02 21:03:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 3 Feb 2001 05:03:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 68820 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2001 05:03:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Feb 2001 05:03:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.144) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2001 05:03:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:03:30 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.25 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:03:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.25] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:03:30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2001 05:03:30.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6AF7640:01C08D9E] From: "Jorge Llambias" > > 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 Of course it doesn't parse, and it shouldn't, that's what I was saying. If xod's use of {le nu } were accepted, it would create ambiguity, that's why it is not acceptable, and it does not parse. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.