From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 07 14:35:57 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 May 2004 14:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BMD0Y-0002si-RT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:35:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:35:50 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI Message-ID: <20040507213550.GL27947@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040507205742.GG27947@digitalkingdom.org> <20040507212811.65944.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040507212811.65944.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7698 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:28:11PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > While I'm at it, if ZO+word and ZOI+clause are treated as one word, > > then "zo .y. si co valsi" is invalid, right? > > I was going to ask what you do with {y}. Oh, don't ask that. :-) Seriously, it's *very* complicated. Y is utterly ignored, except where it's not, where special cases are used to catch it. Basically, Y is caught anywhere that *any* Lojban word would normally be valid, so it can be used in ZEI, BU, ZOI, and ZO. Probably some others. As an *extra* special case, it cannot have BAhE applied to it, because that would just be silly. > I would propose that {y} be totally ignored, so {zoi y gy ... gy} > should be valid. Then you couldn't quote it with {zo}, you'd have to > say {zoi ly y ly}... But then {.y.bu} would require special > treatment... It's really weird that you can't hesitate after certain > words, especially after zoi, which is a place where I expect > hesitation, while you think of an appropriate delimiter. Yeah, it's complicated. > In any case, responding to your question, yes {zo ca si co valsi} > would be invalid. Because it's equivalent to "co valsi", correct? > It is invalid now, according to grammar .300, but for a different > reason. Right. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi