Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:43:55 -0500

On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 05:03:30AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 
> > > 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 <sumti>} were accepted, it would
> create ambiguity, that's why it is not acceptable, and it does
> not parse.

Please don't remove attributions.

So you're saying that 'do catlu be le nu mi klama' is _not_ ambiguous as
the grammar stands, and that 'le nu {sumti}' is illegal to make sure
that it's not ambiguous?

If so, you're agreeing with me, as _I_ was the one who pointed out the
'le nu {sumti}' was bad. 8)

-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