From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon May 17 13:18:05 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 18538 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 20:18:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 May 2004 20:18:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 May 2004 20:18:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BPoSb-0003fD-Bu for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:11:41 -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 1BPoRg-0003dX-H5; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BPoRU-0003dE-I6 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:32 -0700 Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:10:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20040517201032.GS6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040517183810.GP6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040517195705.55879.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040517195705.55879.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7897 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22360 On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- 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. I don't have the power to single-handedly fix the definitions. If you want to propose that the BPFK revisit this issue, please feel absolutely free. > Everybody seemed to agree that it made more sense to not let bu be a > zoi delimiter. I actually don't much care one way or the other at this point. What would "zoi bu" mean if it was allowed? > > 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. True. > > Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu) > > might actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE > > ZEI BU. > > Does that mean that in {da bu zei bu}, zei wins? That does follow, yes, as the other possible parse results in an error. > > > 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? Sorry, I'm working on this still, I'll get back to you. -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