From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri May 07 15:58:07 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 78694 invoked from network); 7 May 2004 22:58:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2004 22:58:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2004 22:58:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BMEI9-0002L0-Nr for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:58:05 -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 4.31) id 1BMEHZ-0002KO-DW; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:57:29 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 May 2004 15:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41908.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.159]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BMEHJ-0002Jj-IP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:57:13 -0700 Message-ID: <20040507225642.29440.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.43.213.18] by web41908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:56:42 PDT Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040507213550.GL27947@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7703 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: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22169 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Basically, Y is caught anywhere that *any* Lojban word would normally be > valid, so it can be used in ZEI, BU, ZOI, and ZO. Probably some others. > As an *extra* special case, it cannot have BAhE applied to it, because > that would just be silly. Why not restrict it to {ybu} only, then, since it is also silly with the other words. You could actually be hesitating, and then you have to start erasing y's, which is very silly. > > In any case, responding to your question, yes {zo ca si co valsi} > > would be invalid. > > Because it's equivalent to "co valsi", correct? Right. mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover