From mail@raphael.poss.name Fri May 07 00:36:23 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 May 2004 00:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.zoper.com ([199.232.160.28])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31)
	id 1BLzu4-0004v5-3R
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:36:16 -0700
Received: (qmail 11937 invoked by uid 1012); 7 May 2004 07:36:14 -0000
Received: from mail@raphael.poss.name by beta.zettai.net by uid 89 with qmail-scanner-1.22 
 (clamdscan: 0.70. spamassassin: 2.63.  Clear:RC:1(213.41.129.7):. 
 Processed in 0.340634 secs); 07 May 2004 07:36:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imladris.raphael.poss.name) (mail@raphael.poss.name@213.41.129.7)
  by 0 with SMTP; 7 May 2004 07:36:13 -0000
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI
References:                         <20040506003409.GI7020@digitalkingdom.org>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20040506181623.032d1340@pop.east.cox.net>
	<20040507005112.GL7020@digitalkingdom.org>
From: lojban@raphael.poss.name (=?iso-8859-1?q?Rapha=EBl_Poss?=)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 09:36:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20040507005112.GL7020@digitalkingdom.org> (Robin Lee Powell's
 message of "Thu, 6 May 2004 17:51:12 -0700")
Message-ID: <87vfj8ofiu.fsf@raphael.poss.name>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through
 Obscurity, linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-archive-position: 7678
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: lojban@raphael.poss.name
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> writes:

>> Also, from a making-sense point of view, I prefer "si" after the
>> closing delimiter to delete the entire zoi phrase (back to and
>> including the zoi).  To say that "The first SI after the close of a
>> ZOI clause erases the closing delimiter..." would make one think the
>> next thing said is part of the inside of the ZOI; so you would never
>> be able to get back to the ZOI.  
>
> Yes, I understand your point completely.  I'd love to hear other people
> chime in on this point.  The problem is that SI is only supposed to
> erase one previous word, so we're moving in to the realm of "not
> justifiable under current standards".

Besides, we have a design flaw  if "si" is supposed  to step back into
the ZOI construct  "word per word"  : what is  a word outside Lojban ?
How "si" is going to affect the  construct if we  cannot break it down
into words in the lojban sense of the term ?

-- 
.                                                  . . _ - --------\
: Raphaël Poss                  JID Elrond@jabber.dk · ICQ 1757157 |
| EPITA CSI 2003 · http://raphael.poss.name · GnuPG fp ...3b72e72b :
\------ - _ . .                                                    '