From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jan 14 11:56:20 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 1620 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2005 19:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Jan 2005 19:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2005 19:56:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CpXY5-0004M7-JR for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:55:57 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CpXXj-0004Le-7B; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:55:35 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CpXXQ-0004LR-69; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:55:16 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:55:16 -0800 Cc: llg-members@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20050114195516.GW22838@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org, llg-members@yahoogroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-archive-position: 9262 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] Opinions, please: SA by structure X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23646 Currently, SA works by selma'o. No-one seems to like this very much. A proposal has been put before the BPFK to have it work by structure instead of word. So, a SA followed by a term (read "sumti", more or less) replaces the previous term. A SA followed by a bridi tail (a brivla plus its sumti) replaces the previous one. A SA followed by ".i" replaces back to the beginning of the previous sentence (or the beginning of text), and so on. Random example: mi klama zy sa lo zarci is read as: mi klama lo zarci whereas before it would have been an error. On the other hand, many SA cases that worked before (such as using it with li'u to continue a quote) no longer function. We've only had a few people on the BPFK express a strong opinion one way or the other (all of them have been positive so far), so I'd like to hear from the community at large. Does this make sense to you? Does it seem like it would be easier to use? Does it seem like it would be easier to learn? Any other comments? Thanks. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/