From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 17 11:38:19 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 17 May 2004 11:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32)
	id 1BPn06-0001p9-HT
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 11:38:10 -0700
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:38:10 -0700
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu"
Message-ID: <20040517183810.GP6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040517170631.GJ6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040517173230.87832.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040517173230.87832.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 7893
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 Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:32:30AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > I am, of course, more than happy to be overruled by the BPFK when it
> > gets to the various words in question.
> 
> Perhaps we should revisit at some point the definition approved for
> "bu":
> 
> bu
> Combines with the previous word to make a Lojban letteral, provided
> that it is not one of the quote cmavo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one of
> the erasure cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAhE, or FAhO. [...]

/kick self

I completely forgot to check the new definitions.

Fixed.

As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was the
commissioner's intention).

Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu) might
actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE ZEI BU.

> I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu si
> da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?

You never let up, do you?  :-)

No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase both BU
and Y.

-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