Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:07:58 -0500

On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 11:58:20PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:

>> From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> 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 <[email-masked]>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein