Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <983f5a31-9fc4-426b-9565-a315d23b6d84@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAO7bV+ibEzM0Pig3Ch5uHYtkWUzf+zWNi3UANbp+C7CqQ2T6ag@mail.gmail.com>
	<a043f08a-8832-49ec-8f96-8effb47f619b@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2de12cUviLUXbjhPKB8pHNVeUrO-1NauDj=qMzU+mP=Ew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEhjWWM6Yqm77jA8m1r3q3y6kXEi1DD9rQfp3bCVp662DcXXiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<69108030-6005-444c-830a-26aac6447cbc@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2em0FAp2Y5fZvCnjrBJtp9vwgRHi27ekNjnAi1wnVJm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<983f5a31-9fc4-426b-9565-a315d23b6d84@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:18:54 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fEkfS77_U72=QTXx7D7+_b3yr_cSxxeNHSKQAqUeZK1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: Grammar of letterals and numerals in {li}
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044481c941b07005181c4eef
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--f46d044481c941b07005181c4eef
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:38 PM, <spheniscine@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I understand correctly, you are proposing that "operand" would no
>> longer be "quantifier" or "lerfu-string" (among other things) but some new
>> mixed entity. Whether this is a problem or not depends on your idea of
>> simplicity, and whether or not it's worth striving for.
>>
>
> The thing is in this particular context, it's causing so many problems.
> Simplicity is worth it up to a point, but not when it causes so many
> problems.
>

I guess I don't really see the many problems. I have fallen, and seen
others fall, into the "abu za'u re'u cusku" trap and similar traps many
times. I don't recall seeing things like "li 827266128281627362816Z" or
even like "li R2D2" much in use.

Don't get me wrong; I actually support your proposal. I'm just trying to
> come to a compromise for what I and others see is the part of it that
> causes the most problems, for the least benefit.
>

For me even for operands the cost outweighs the benefits.

We now have to attach "bu" to every vowel, is that so different?
>> Lerfu-strings are relatively rare in usage. I just don't see much need to
>> have special rules for them.
>>
>
> For one thing there is an experimental letteral series that uses a'y, e'y,
> i'y, o'y, and u'y (however, it's not been decided what to do with y'y under
> this system).
>

We could have pa'y, re'y, ci'y as well if that was an issue (I am NOT
proposing these).


> For another thing, it introduces opacity to the Lojban numeral system.
> They are embarrassingly simple compared to most other languages in that
> they are read out nacle'u by nacle'u. Having to figure out when {bu} needs
> to be added to them before reading any character string aloud ruins that
> simplicity.
>

> It's like this. "abu, ebu" etc are treated as one "word" in people's
> minds, and represent the letters {a} and {e}. However, deciding when to use
> {pa} and when to use {pabu}, when both are rendered as the simple numeral
> {1}, introduces practical usage difficulties.
>

Having to decide when digits can be mixed with letters and when they can't
would introduce more usage difficulties in my opinion. I just don't see
lerfu-strings being used that much, let alone ones containing digits.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.

--f46d044481c941b07005181c4eef
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:38 PM,  <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:spheniscine@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">spheniscine@gmail.com</a>&gt;</=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div>If I understand correctly, you are proposing that &quot;operand&qu=
ot; would no longer be &quot;quantifier&quot; or &quot;lerfu-string&quot; (=
among other things) but some new mixed entity. Whether this is a problem or=
 not depends on your idea of simplicity, and whether or not it&#39;s worth =
striving for.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>The =
thing is in this particular context, it&#39;s causing so many problems. Sim=
plicity is worth it up to a point, but not when it causes so many problems.=
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess I don&#39;t really see=
 the many problems. I have fallen, and seen others fall, into the &quot;abu=
 za&#39;u re&#39;u cusku&quot; trap and similar traps many times. I don&#39=
;t recall seeing things like &quot;li 827266128281627362816Z&quot; or even =
like &quot;li R2D2&quot; much in use.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Don&#39;t get me wrong; I actuall=
y support your proposal. I&#39;m just trying to come to a compromise for wh=
at I and others see is the part of it that causes the most problems, for th=
e least benefit.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For me even fo=
r operands the cost outweighs the benefits.</div><div><br></div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>We now have to att=
ach &quot;bu&quot; to every vowel, is that so different? Lerfu-strings are =
relatively rare in usage. I just don&#39;t see much need to have special ru=
les for them.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>For =
one thing there is an experimental letteral series that uses a&#39;y, e&#39=
;y, i&#39;y, o&#39;y, and u&#39;y (however, it&#39;s not been decided what =
to do with y&#39;y under this system). </div></div></blockquote><div><br></=
div><div>We could have pa&#39;y, re&#39;y, ci&#39;y as well if that was an =
issue (I am NOT proposing these).=C2=A0</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>For another thing, it introduces op=
acity to the Lojban numeral system. They are embarrassingly simple compared=
 to most other languages in that they are read out nacle&#39;u by nacle&#39=
;u. Having to figure out when {bu} needs to be added to them before reading=
 any character string aloud ruins that simplicity.=C2=A0</div></div></block=
quote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>I=
t&#39;s like this. &quot;abu, ebu&quot; etc are treated as one &quot;word&q=
uot; in people&#39;s minds, and represent the letters {a} and {e}. However,=
 deciding when to use {pa} and when to use {pabu}, when both are rendered a=
s the simple numeral {1}, introduces practical usage difficulties.</div></d=
iv></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Having to decide when digits can be mix=
ed with letters and when they can&#39;t would introduce more usage difficul=
ties in my opinion. I just don&#39;t see lerfu-strings being used that much=
, let alone ones containing digits.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi=
9;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></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 />

--f46d044481c941b07005181c4eef--