On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Jacob Erringto= n <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. lo'u ... le'u is n= ot equivalent to a string of zo-quotes placed in a
> sequence using ce'o. It is equivalent to a single lu .. li'u q= utoe, except
> that the internal contents only need to be in Lojban, they do not need= to be
> grammatical.
>

That's one way to see it. A grammatical quote differs funda= mentally
from a multi-word quote in that inside a grammatical quote, the words
actually interact. {lo'u a bu le'u} is fundamentally different from=
{lu a bu li'u}. Inside the lu-quote, bu is actually a magic word,
unlike when inside a lo'u-quote (check in jbofi'e, I'm not kidd= ing
you).

Well then, based on that, I would say that w= e don't want to use lo'u ... le'u.
=A0

Regardless, I wasn't asserting that a lo'u...le'u quote be equi= valent
to a sequence of zo-quotes; I was simply telling you that's how I see it, considering that pretty much any other interpretation of it fails.
In fact, the CLL in that aforementioned chapter, uses a lu-quote to
quote {abu} rather than a lo'u-quote. I presume that it's for the v= ery
good reason that {bu} is not magical inside a lo'u-quote.

>>
>> Using {la'e lu abu by cy li'u} is wrong on a different lev= el, because
>> inside a lu..li'u words INTERACT with each other, such that al= l those
>> BY (and ABU) compound to form one variable.
>
>
> I fail to see how "the referent of 'b a r d a'" is w= rong on /any/ level, but
> it's not a moot point, because I wasn't suggesting that it'= ;s the correct way
> to do things, but merely that it's GRAMMATICAL.
>

Like I've said it already, the lu-quote produces one meaningful l= ump
of text, whereas the lo'u-quote produces a sequence of words. Inside a<= br> lu-quote, words get parsed and INTERACT with each other (I dreadfully
feel like I'm repeating myself). This causes all the BY to collide and<= br> form ONE SINGLE VARIABLE. Because we want to get at the individual
letters, allowing them to merge as such is undesired. Therefore, using
a lu-quote is unuseful for this purpose.

Yeah, I d= on't see how. Out side of a lu .. li'u, each BY would fill a separa= te sumti in a bridi, they don't clump together into one thing. The mere= act of quoting a series of letterals doesn't cause them to become &quo= t;one single variable".
=A0

As it apparently wasn't clear, the level on which {la'e lu by abu r= y
dy abu li'u} is wrong is a SEMANTIC level. Obviously, it's grammati= cal
-- I never argued that point.