{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Rainbow Dash Network","provider_url":"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/","type":"link","title":"Omni (omni)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Dec-12 21:26:06 UTC","author_name":"Omni (omni)","author_url":"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/omni","url":"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/notice\/2183786","html":"@<span class=\"vcard\"><a href=\"http:\/\/rainbowdash.net\/user\/1948\" class=\"url\" title=\"Cerulean Spark\"><span class=\"fn nickname\">ceruleanspark<\/span><\/a><\/span> Actually not. It was made for &quot;unambigious communication which can easily be parsed by computers&quot;. I can give you another sentence, which will show that is probably isn't all that bad: {mi gleki lo su'u do tavla mi kei ku} which parses as {[1(2[gleki1 (happy thing(s)) :] mi I, me)2 [is, does] \u00ab3gleki being happy\u00bb3 (4[gleki2 (subject(s) of happiness) :] lo any\/some &lt;5su'u abstract nature of [6(7[tavla1 (talk-er(s)) :] do you)7 [is, does] \u00ab8tavla talk-ing\u00bb8 (9[tavla2 (talked to thing(s)) :] mi I, me)9]6 kei &gt;5 ku )4]1} (I'm happy about the fact that you're talking to me)."}