Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> I take it then that while "la born" is grammatical, "la borno" isn't.

I think that is correct, but I'm not issuing a ruling here.

> I presume that the current machine parser is not a grammaticality
> tester.

It's a buggy grammaticality tester.  It cheerfully accepts a variety of
malformed sentences because of its naive morphology modules
(it thinks "secusku" is a single le'avla, not a variant spelling of
"se cusku"); it does not handle "si", "sa", or "su"; it does not correctly
process constructs of the form:

	lo'u [Lojban junk] zoi le'u. [non-Lojban junk] .le'u [Lojban junk] le'u

and so on.  It is a compromise between correctness and easy implementability.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.