From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 10 11:53:10 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 3850 invoked from network); 10 May 2004 18:53:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2004 18:53:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2004 18:53:10 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BNFkQ-0005nL-Q4 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:43:30 -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 1BNFjk-0005mN-VF; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:42:49 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 11:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNFjb-0005m3-8X for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:42:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20040510184208.99162.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:42:08 PDT Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:42:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040510175516.GC5570@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7748 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: 22212 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > OK, so what would you say that "zo broda zei broda" is, then? I > certainly don't know. If I had to pick one, I would say that it's > "(zo broda) zei broda"; i.e. "'broda' type of broda". Me too. In fact that's what I thought it meant until you raised this issue and I looked into it more carfeully. I recently used {zo zei zei lujvo} for "'zei'-lujvo", for example, convinced that it was legal. A simple {zei zei lujvo} obviously won't work. BTW, what does your parser do with {zei zei da} at the beginning of text? > > {da zei de bu} is legal: first {da zei de} delivers BRIVLA, and then > > {BRIVLA BU} delivers BY. > > Good point, but not terribly helpful for the ZO + ZEI case that I can > see. At least it shows that "word" is a flexible concept in these definitions. In {zo da si de}, {zo da bu}, {zo da zei de}, we have zo and something else fighting over the same word, one pulling from the left and the other from the right. We just have to define which one has priority, and the other one should act on what remains. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover