From lojban+bncCK30vq5WEOGKt-YEGgSWtUn6@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 31 12:37:19 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCdiN-00040x-WE; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:19 -0700 Received: by pwi2 with SMTP id 2sf408864pwi.16 for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=EH/uMAuRNvjGyoLExA7pnW2k2Tlf9Iz+j5vROJzU/qA=; b=O/pjlz1cePY5vwKj75sBPRM1WFMjJQ4AKOYIfVhn6N03LT7ao0afkP6ZuYrxEnAW18 G8nz+g24ykJwr2bxhN0RIqQ67QUXfFClkiesAbcOPfpL/LrG3sJfY6xP4FTqg2hgcg6K 4O4nzE1eJV+9w+yGakBca8W655h5FklP78EOw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; b=D5sG6NdqwC554G2YNCCUmp/88eNjPt5BcvKQRqaUXq5oOwl/WvIcKzRzywgAlif6a8 vx4+55ezZP/GhRjcgjcQU9XFWlEeRb2ERmOqNMcEA3nJByc1fO5O6E5/HKFYfcd5xyTH iEXsUuiNuQ8Tpn7JxdnFnGadbCGgfNqLqEv+w= Received: by 10.142.150.13 with SMTP id x13mr159498wfd.6.1288553825116; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.249.41 with SMTP id w41ls4723754wfh.1.p; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.224.3 with SMTP id w3mr2827470wfg.46.1288553824308; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.224.3 with SMTP id w3mr2827469wfg.46.1288553824290; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si7770730wfj.1.2010.10.31.12.37.04; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PCdiB-00040j-Eb for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:03 -0700 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:37:03 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] cu-alike for other situations Message-ID: <20101031193703.GB1105@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20101031173116.GX1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101031182023.GA1105@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 03:34:50PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote: > Ok, so the general rule when reading a piece of text and > encountering a {cu} is "ok, whatever comes next, it's applied to > the main selbri (either it is the main selbri, or it's going in > the FV slot)". Does that sound right? No. Next outer bridi, not "main" bridi, whatever that might mean. Same as {cu} works now: mi djica le nu le klama cu xunre > Can {CU} be followed by BAI? How about tags in general? It seems > inconsistent to say that {cu fi} is good but {cu ca} is not. FA > and PU behave the same in nearly all other respects. Why should > they be different here? Good point. > For the record, I think it's a great idea. It seems a shame that > with as useful as {cu} is, it's only allowed to be used to "pop > out" to the main selbri. -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.