From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed May 12 23:31:48 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 83945 invoked from network); 13 May 2004 06:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 May 2004 06:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 May 2004 06:31:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BO9kY-00086u-RA for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 12 May 2004 23:31:22 -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 1BO9jr-00086E-I1; Wed, 12 May 2004 23:30:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 May 2004 23:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BO9jh-000861-8L for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 23:30:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:30:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20040513063029.GU4461@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040510191837.GK5570@digitalkingdom.org> <20040510193718.13449.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040510193718.13449.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7786 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] "zo da bu" should not be valid (was Re: Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22249 On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:37:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > Do you prefer to leave {zo a bu} as broken instead of giving it one of > the two obvious possible meanings? I've spent a good portion of my free time since you posted this thinking about this issue. It turns out that the answer is "Yes". There's a simple reason for this: it's the only solution that fits the current cmavo definitions. zo takes a single Lojban word. bu takes a single Lobjan word. si takes as single word, or an arbitrary string of non-Lojban text. This is how they are defined. zo is not defined as "takes a single word, or a word+bu". bu is not defined as "takes a single word, or word+zo". You get the idea. "zo da bu" should fail for basically the same reason that "zo ije broda" fails. That's a perfectly the reasonable mistake for a new user to make, since ije is used all the time as though it were a single word, but zo takes one word, and only one. Similarily, "jenai bu broda" fails, and should, for the same reason. In "zo da bu", both zo and bu are trying to take the same word. This can't work: they both take one word. No more, no less. Since there's only one word for them to share, the expression fails. More precisely, the expression fails because zo already ate da by the time we get to bu. If the BPFK decides to change the word definitions, that's fine, but in the meantime, I'm going with what I've got. This means the "zoi takes 4 si" thing still stands, because that's how si is defined. If I've missed anything, tell me, but I don't think I have. -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