From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon Feb 05 11:08:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 19:08:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 39006 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 19:08:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 19:08:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 20:09:17 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[192.168.3.11]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19734; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:09:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A7EFA0E.6070009@reutershealth.com> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:07:58 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686; en-US; 0.7) Gecko/20010119 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robin Lee Powell Cc: Jorge Llambias , lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u References: <20010205134147.B18781@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan 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. Well, no. It is not illegal because it is unambiguous, it is illegal because it makes no sense to abstract a sumti. What can be abstracted is a bridi, and a bridi must (syntactically) contain a selbri, at least the maximally-vague selbri "co'e". -- There is / one art || John Cowan no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein