From zefram@fysh.org Thu May 13 12:39:32 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 May 2004 12:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.167.170.152] (helo=bowl.fysh.org ident=mail)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24)
	(Exim 4.32)
	id 1BOM38-00018P-R1
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 12:39:23 -0700
Received: from zefram by bowl.fysh.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BOM33-0008NR-00; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:39:17 +0100
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 20:39:17 +0100
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: y: what is it good for?
Message-ID: <20040513193917.GC16333@fysh.org>
References: <20040513183600.GJ4461@digitalkingdom.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040513183600.GJ4461@digitalkingdom.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: Zefram <zefram@fysh.org>
X-archive-position: 7794
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

I'm following these grammar debates with considerable interest.  I've
studied programming language design a great deal, and so I'm finding
some of these design issues quite familiar.  I'm looking forward to
knowing Lojban well enough to make a thorough analysis of the grammar.

I think the cleanest way to handle "y" is to treat it as an erase word
that erases nothing.  This means that:

* it is not necessary to explicitly erase a pause: "le y si lo broda"
  preprocesses to "lo broda"

* it can be quoted with "zo"; if you want to pause before a quoted
  word, develop the habit of pausing *before* the "zo", as in "y y y
  zo nalselmorjyvalsi"

* it can be used as a "zoi" delimiter (though I think the ability to use
  erase words here is bad design; I'd prefer "zoi si zo" to preprocess to
  "zo")

* more generally, it's not a special case, making learning easier

How does this interact with "bu" and "zei"?  Is "si bu" valid?  If not
then "ybu" might have to be an exception to the above.

Incidentally, why was this "bu" system devised?  Why not use, for example,
"a'y" to "u'y" for the vowels?

-zefram