From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Mon Feb 05 10:36:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 18:36:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 4383 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 18:36:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 18:36:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 18:36:01 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA19107; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:41:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:41:48 -0500 To: Jorge Llambias Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u Message-ID: <20010205134147.B18781@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 Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 11:58:20PM +0000 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 11:58:20PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > >From: Robin Lee Powell > > > >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? > > Exactly. > > >If so, you're agreeing with me, as _I_ was the one who pointed out the > >'le nu {sumti}' was bad. 8) > > Of course. That's why I was baffled when you objected to my > reply to xod. Note that John Cowan replied in the same fashion I did. I really _sounded_ like you were insisting that the example sentences you presented were ambiguous. -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