From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 10 12:37:55 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 12:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNGaz-0006qD-9B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 12:37:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20040510193718.13449.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 10 May 2004 12:37:18 PDT Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:37:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040510191837.GK5570@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7753 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > My parser handles it exactly the same way in "mi broda lo zei zei da" > and "mi broda zei zei da". How come those are not "mi broda lo-zei-zei da" and "mi broda-zei-zei da"? > "zei bu" you seem to be correct on, and that follows from their relative > priorities. I've just told BU to not work on ZEI, ever, to avoid that > special case. When you have "zei zei" you have to decide which one acts as glue and which one as lujvo component. Why would you take the second one as glue? > > When zo fights with these words directly, it always wins: > > {zo si}, {zo bu}, {zo zei}, so I don't see any reason for it not to > > win when it fights with them over a third word. If {zo da} can be a > > single word for {bu} and for {zei} to grab, > > Is that exactly the question that we're discussing? As far as I can > tell, zo da is *never* considered a single word. In the current grammar, that's correct. > The official parser doesn't accept "zo da bu", nor "zo da zei broda", so > I'm not sure where you get the idea that "{zo da} can be a single word > for {bu} and for {zei} to grab" ? If "da zei de" can be a single word for bu, why can't "zo da" be a single word for bu? Do you prefer to leave {zo a bu} as broken instead of giving it one of the two obvious possible meanings? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover