From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Feb 12 08:15:17 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:15:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HGdpk-0003Cu-Ja for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:15:17 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HGdpc-0003Ci-Rx for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:15:16 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so3955472nfb for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:15:06 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OfvaiTpiOvAv53qEI2X4qkp+X+fDrNyOwKWWrXHLQ9iPX4IKgRZYjpnVKnVSRXCFQEJzmbLu+Q0vcJ6h02S/9kxIsBFW3y0WrW187fCUXwGzl833iJ1vsC6hbg8B6Xc8Xui1/ifY3eqHVb2eCBST8+STRSTlcIcAigBguli+jm0= Received: by 10.49.36.6 with SMTP id o6mr4759070nfj.1171296899796; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:14:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.9.8 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:14:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560702120814y48ea6a40s2937532cf7c71840@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:14:59 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: bo In-Reply-To: <23dc8c770702120753u53e11f27u9cb5f207c4d95579@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <23dc8c770702120645p3d547d3fyc56f98405c29c293@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560702120734s5e4166c3m3fd7df9c7b85a7e7@mail.gmail.com> <23dc8c770702120753u53e11f27u9cb5f207c4d95579@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 4038 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 2/12/07, Karl Naylor wrote: > > Why is there not a different cmavo for 'make this > tag function as a connective'? Did it just turn out that you > generally want to use {bo} in these cases anyway, so they may as well > be the same word? I don't think that was the reason. I suspect it was more like: "we can allow the insertion of a tag here and still make it parse unambiguously, so let's just allow it". I don't think making tags into connectives was a priority, it was just allowed because it didn't break anything. As it turns out though, that function is more useful than the tight binding one. It is rare that more than a single connective is used, unless it's more than one conjunction but in that case binding order makes no difference. mu'o mi'e xorxes