[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 11:11:30PM -0500, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 08:29:09PM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote:
[...]
> > > One possible argument is that it would allow saying things with
> > > less syllables. Another is that it would remove reduce/reduce or
> > > shift/reduce conflicts and/or simplify the grammar.
> >
> > Another is that if it makes sense, and it causes no problems,
> > there is no reason not to allow it.
>
> A lot of things make sense that aren't worth allowing.
>
> Everyone can tell you what
> le po'u la fidos. gerku cu citka
> would mean. But why allow it? It saves nothing.
Bah. I forgot that relative clauses and phrases use the same rule.
That's already allowed.
So how about
le be le nanmu be'o kerlo cu barda
for an example.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binTk33jYGj2S.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped