From cowan@ccil.org Sun May 16 20:05:31 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 53802 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 03:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 May 2004 03:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 May 2004 03:05:30 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BPYRR-0008D2-QS; Sun, 16 May 2004 23:05:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 23:05:25 -0400 To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20040517030525.GA28843@ccil.org> References: <20040516003519.GZ6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040516003519.GZ6978@chain.digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 192.190.237.100 From: John Cowan Subject: Re: [lojban] Double-checking: "bu bu" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=212516 X-Yahoo-Profile: johnwcowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22352 Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > Is "bu bu" valid? I know "da bu bu" is, but that's not the same thing. I call them junk. If they happen to work at beginning of text, that's a pointless artifact. Rule them out. On the other thread, I do think "zo .y." is a Good Thing, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise (presumably requiring "zoi zoi .y. zoi"?). -- My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan For XML Schema's too taxing: jcowan@reutershealth.com I'd use DTDs http://www.reutershealth.com If they had local trees -- http://www.ccil.org/~cowan I think I best switch to RELAX NG.