Re: sumti grammar oddity

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob LeChevalier <[email protected]>
> (The real answer is that we tried to make the grammar as unrestricted as
> possible, while still being able to resolve the structure unambigously per
> YACC.
>
> There is all kinds of nonsense possible in number strings too, so we
should
> expect some amount of nonsense to be grammatical in Lojban sumti
structures.
>
> At one time I was one of those fighting to find interpretations for as
many
> possible strings, but Cowan convinced me that this was a waste of time.)

One of these days we should write a grammar of that part of Lojban
that is meaningful -- a grammar that people can/should actually
learn.

--And.