From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 17 13:01:57 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 21882 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 20:01:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 May 2004 20:01:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 May 2004 20:01:56 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BPoFv-0003KL-OR for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 17 May 2004 12:58:36 -0700 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPoFA-0003Ix-8d; Mon, 17 May 2004 12:57:48 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 17 May 2004 12:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPoEy-0003IW-CP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 12:57:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20040517195705.55879.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 17 May 2004 12:57:05 PDT Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040517183810.GP6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7896 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22359 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I completely forgot to check the new definitions. > > Fixed. It's disheartening that you are "fixing" the parser instead of the definition. Everybody seemed to agree that it made more sense to not let bu be a zoi delimiter. > As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was the > commissioner's intention). The commissioner was simply reproducing the official grammar, which indeed had zoi bu ... bu as valid. The alternatives had not been considered until now. > Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu) might > actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE ZEI BU. Doea that mean that in {da bu zei bu}, zei wins? > > 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. So {zo y bu si da} is ungrammatical? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/