From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jul 18 07:38:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 18 Jul 2001 14:38:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 59837 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 14:37:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2001 14:37:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 14:37:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id r.8c.98d813f (4420) for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8c.98d813f.2886f926@aol.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:37:26 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] emerald tablet To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8c.98d813f.2886f926_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8c.98d813f.2886f926_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/18/2001 5:56:55 AM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes: > Why do I need cu's if there's nothing else that could be a selbri? > a) Nothing requires that there be a selbri in an utterance, so there is no way to know that what "must" be the selbri is to be one. b) Even if there did have to be a selbri, nothing requires that the one that "must" be on be it -- until after it has been uttered and we come to the {ko}. But Lojban requires that we know before we come to the {ko} that the word before it is a selbri, not the second brivla of a sumti (that how Lojban is grammatically unambiguous). --part1_8c.98d813f.2886f926_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/18/2001 5:56:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
ragnarok@pobox.com writes:


Why do I need cu's if there's nothing else that could be a selbri?

a) Nothing requires that there be a selbri in an utterance, so there is no
way to know that what "must" be the selbri is to be one.

b) Even if there did have to be a selbri, nothing requires that the one that
"must" be on be it -- until after it has been uttered and we come to the
{ko}.  But Lojban requires that we know before we come to the {ko} that the
word before it is a selbri, not the second brivla of a sumti (that how Lojban
is grammatically unambiguous).  
--part1_8c.98d813f.2886f926_boundary--