Received: from mail-ie0-f192.google.com ([209.85.223.192]:32824)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBDF3JKNIWYOBB3U7Y6OAKGQEP3UZRVY@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Wsv7l-000477-30; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:28:19 -0700
Received: by mail-ie0-f192.google.com with SMTP id rp18sf215817iec.29
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=bc9Jdvzi9U2c5stDP9Q0SoVnr6J5q8zrygaiB1nJQ/A=;
        b=i+G4Xuss3fOrCUkOiZUi04LKT8MhQvPDHUnb6QoccTYDr1a50bzfKpDvevsi9i2ece
         7VC6nk//f8YPooG74nRY7/rumltW5IFqIAKM9xWvShz5Ogsfdw46hduS8XQ3a80hg0GB
         KSJsp6+Y0UZcWLxu/JWjSqdQ1oLmTLY9g5el9h6OR+5TnC+cExDPnl7F1S4y1MxKGAEy
         JlqXGMVXWZIn/o+OLUfYln+Bp3yejanaUW2DFJfTim0XU0BgoctZaiHFXaxEl+20wU/X
         mOiqZCLDyRYN1EAlcJ2RQnUfyEgTkTVk8Wh0O8kaC4ceuwQhW094TubHl7LvT8ubnGpR
         Nuzg==
X-Received: by 10.182.63.7 with SMTP id c7mr20370obs.28.1402064878804;
        Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.158.105 with SMTP id wt9ls281919obb.33.gmail; Fri, 06 Jun
 2014 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.28.102 with SMTP id a6mr2801538obh.44.1402064878517;
        Fri, 06 Jun 2014 07:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.82.104 with SMTP id h8msigy;
        Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.91.37 with SMTP id cb5mr29247obb.0.1402028580751;
        Thu, 05 Jun 2014 21:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <d4bf0415-f7b6-4735-b6f1-dcebc0100386@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bpfk] BAhE + BU
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: shunpiker@gmail.com
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_273_2853801.1402028580191"
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_273_2853801.1402028580191
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

coi la banpla fuzykamni

I have a question about the interaction of BAhE and BU.

The BPFK pages for "nonce connectives 
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Nonce+Connectives>" and "lerfu 
forming cmavo 
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+lerfu+Forming+cmavo>" seem to 
indicate that {ba'e bu} should not form a letteral. "Nonce connectives" 
says this about {ba'e}:

For grammatical purposes, "ba'e" marks the following word but does not 
change its nature, and does not bind with it or form a single unified 
construct in any way.


And "lerfu forming cmavo" says this:

Combines with the previous word to make a Lojban letteral, provided that it 
is not one of the quote cmavo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one of the erasure 
cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAhE, or FAhO.  


However, "nonce connectives" also includes this example:

ko pensi me'o depsna bu .e me'o ba'e bu
*Think about "hesitation sound", and the emphasis letter.*


I read "emphasis letter" as a translation of {ba'e bu}, which would seem to 
indicate that it has formed a Lojban letteral. I would also interpret this 
as a "binding" between {ba'e} and {bu} to "form a single unified 
construct". So it would appear that this example is not consistent with the 
definitions. The parsers are also at odds: YACC and jbofihe reject {ba'e 
bu}, and camxes accepts it.

I assume that whatever is true for {ba'e bu} is also true for {za'e bu}, 
but I'm confused by the seemingly contradictory statements that {za'e} is 
"grammatically identical to za'e" and yet "for grammatical purposes, {za'e} 
binds with and marks the following word". It would seem that whatever it 
means to "bind" the following word, it's not a grammatically significant 
operation, since {ba'e} and {za'e} differ in that aspect.

Can anyone shed light on these issues? Thank you!

--Riley
mi'e la mukti mu'o


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_273_2853801.1402028580191
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"color: rgb(84, 84, 84); font-size: sma=
ll; line-height: 20.22222328186035px;">coi la banpla fuzykamni</span><br></=
div><div><br></div><div>I have a question about the interaction of BAhE and=
 BU.</div><div><br></div><div>The BPFK pages for "<a href=3D"http://www.loj=
ban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Nonce+Connectives">nonce connectives</a>" and =
"<a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+lerfu+Forming+cmavo"=
>lerfu forming cmavo</a>" seem to indicate that {ba'e bu} should not form a=
 letteral. "Nonce connectives" says this about {ba'e}:<br></div><div><br></=
div><blockquote style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><=
div><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-s=
erif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">For grammatical purposes, "ba'e"=
 marks the following word but does not change its nature, and does not bind=
 with it or form a single unified construct in any way.</span></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>And "lerfu forming cmavo" says this:</div><div><b=
r></div><blockquote style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px=
;"><div><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sa=
ns-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Combines with the previous w=
ord to make a Lojban letteral, provided that it is not one of the quote cma=
vo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one of the erasure cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAh=
E, or FAhO.</span><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana,=
 Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">&nbsp;</span>&nbsp=
;</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>However, "nonce connectives" also i=
ncludes this example:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style=3D"margin: 0 0 =
0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><dl style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);=
 font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18p=
x;"><dt>ko pensi me'o depsna bu .e me'o ba'e bu</dt></dl></div><div><dl sty=
le=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-si=
ze: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><dd><i>Think about "hesitation sound", and th=
e emphasis letter.</i></dd></dl></div></blockquote><div><dl style=3D"color:=
 rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; li=
ne-height: 18px;"><div><br></div><div>I read "emphasis letter" as a transla=
tion of {ba'e bu}, which would seem to indicate that it has formed a Lojban=
 letteral. I would also interpret this as a "binding" between {ba'e} and {b=
u} to "form a single unified construct". So it would appear that this examp=
le is not consistent with the definitions. The parsers are also at odds: YA=
CC and jbofihe reject {ba'e bu}, and camxes accepts it.</div><div><br></div=
><div>I assume that whatever is true for {ba'e bu} is also true for {za'e b=
u}, but I'm confused by the seemingly contradictory statements that {za'e} =
is "grammatically identical to za'e" and yet "for grammatical purposes, {za=
'e} binds with and marks the following word". It would seem that whatever i=
t means to "bind" the following word, it's not a grammatically significant =
operation, since {ba'e} and {za'e} differ in that aspect.<br></div><div><br=
></div><div><div>Can anyone shed light on these issues? Thank you!</div></d=
iv></dl></div><div><br></div><div>--Riley</div><div>mi'e la mukti mu'o</div=
><div><br></div><div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdan=
a, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br></div></div>=
</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;BPFK&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bpfk-list=
+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list@googlegrou=
ps.com">bpfk-list@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list">ht=
tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_273_2853801.1402028580191--