From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri May 07 14:17:24 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81760 invoked from network); 7 May 2004 21:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2004 21:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2004 21:17:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BMCfS-0000iL-Cm for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:14:02 -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 1BMCep-0000hm-J3; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:13:23 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 May 2004 14:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BMCeg-0000hD-3j for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:13:14 -0700 Message-ID: <20040507211243.95368.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:12:43 PDT Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:12:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040507204725.GB27947@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7693 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: 22160 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I think that the Right Thing is to treat {zo } and {zoi > > } as single tokens of selmaho KOhA. > > Why KOhA? What else? They behave as KOhAs in all other respects. This would only affect their behaviour vis-a-vis {si}, {bu} and {zei}. (Also {ba'e}, but the effect here is almost irrelevant.) {zo zo}, {zo zoi}, {zoi zoi ... zoi} and {zoi zo ... zo} would remain valid because they act first. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover