Received: from mail-wg0-f60.google.com ([74.125.82.60]:34334) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z24k8-0003yQ-1s; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:38:13 -0700 Received: by wggx12 with SMTP id x12sf19027wgg.1; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=jV19815leRu0JwCI6MlQ/oM6B4VGq2/tuchzIxaU/2M=; b=JO5bCUi6Y1aSnHxax2+WqSaR4SJvCyO8WqpBQ7mln3L6WCTUIlnmqgcy+MiDMqfYMX UJD6RoDf7I0VhpXbynA3wZ+VL32TZcf/LGDTI17Cab6I8GQuaCe6fhgpKerAJNW7gx1q YNLG0B5FJcqjIkg6JwGQ3CUYbuDo31S0U2Ys0pys4Gpmhqa1pLx2A9Wiyertm6/Wz2GZ TVMdzRzRhsbFYKDC/7IhVk9rRPi+OCq5PqCd8UvWJTVgbucseq3nXL7ecT3K0bPx26dI qfc2NzcFqGrloOxrnoPmJNRjTLTxueX5fhsAbIVaffVQflxDND+oVxMzUQeXzq3MW9ha QCLg== X-Received: by 10.180.75.229 with SMTP id f5mr84055wiw.16.1433799477134; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.186.72 with SMTP id fi8ls1028097wic.52.canary; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.58.164 with SMTP id s4mr18801723wjq.3.1433799476829; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ha2si118381wib.1.2015.06.08.14.37.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::233; Received: by mail-wi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d19so349555wiw.0 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.179.200 with SMTP id di8mr36264733wjc.56.1433799476722; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.26.17 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 14:37:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <69108030-6005-444c-830a-26aac6447cbc@googlegroups.com> References: <69108030-6005-444c-830a-26aac6447cbc@googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:37:56 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Re: Grammar of letterals and numerals in {li} From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6468c97d40ea05180874ce X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Content-Length: 7461 --e89a8f6468c97d40ea05180874ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:57 AM, wrote: > One advantage would be not having two separate rules. >> > > I don't see why that's such a problem. The grammar of LI...LOhO is already > unique; that's why it's its own selma'o. And I don't think there are any > serious attempts to combine it with any other selma'o, unlike sumtcita. > "number" appears in the following contexts in the grammar: number ROI number MOI number MAI XI number [BOI] number [BOI] (= quantifier, which in turn can also be an operand) "lerfu-string" appears in similar (but not identical) contexts: lerfu-string MOI lerfu-string MAI XI lerfu-string [BOI] lerfu-string [BOI] (= operand) lerfu-string [BOI] (= sumti) (Also TEI lerfu-string FOI, which converts a lerfu-string into a lerfu. I don't remember ever seeing it used though.) The numbers that appear in LI ... LOhO are mex, which can be a single operand, which can be a quantifier or a lerfu-string. If I understand correctly, you are proposing that "operand" would no longer be "quantifier" or "lerfu-string" (among other things) but some new mixed entity. Whether this is a problem or not depends on your idea of simplicity, and whether or not it's worth striving for. But seriously, if LI...LOhO is messed with, breaking the functionality of > {me'o} (and {li'ai}, > which under your proposal might actually be now needed to quote things like > R2D2 {li'ai ry re dy re} instead of using it as a bare sumti), > As a bare sumti. it's a pronoun, not a name, so that doesn't seem to change. "li'ai ry re bu dy re bu" for R2D2 would be much like "li'ai ny .a bu sy .a bu" for NASA. Under your proposal you would still need "boi" or "lo'o" in cases such as "li'ai R2D2 [boi/lo'o/cu] za'u re'u cusku". we'd be forced to come up with a new selma'o just so we can quote arbitrary > character strings without attaching {bu} to every nacle'u. > We now have to attach "bu" to every vowel, is that so different? Lerfu-strings are relatively rare in usage. I just don't see much need to have special rules for them. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --e89a8f6468c97d40ea05180874ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:57 AM, <spheniscine@gmail.com> wro= te:
=
One advantage would be not having two separate rules.

I don't see why that's such a prob= lem. The grammar of LI...LOhO is already unique; that's why it's it= s own selma'o. And I don't think there are any serious attempts to = combine it with any other selma'o, unlike sumtcita.

"number" appears in the following contex= ts in the grammar:

number ROI
number= MOI
number MAI
XI number [BOI]
number [BOI] = (=3D quantifier, which in turn can also be an operand)

=
"lerfu-string" appears in similar (but not identical) contex= ts:

lerfu-string MOI
lerfu-string MAI
XI lerfu-string [BOI]
lerfu-string [BOI] (=3D operand)
lerfu-string [BOI] (=3D sumti)

(Also TEI l= erfu-string FOI, which converts a lerfu-string into a lerfu. I don't re= member ever seeing it used though.)

The numbers th= at appear in LI ... LOhO are mex, which can be a single operand, which can = be a quantifier or a lerfu-string.

If I understand= correctly, you are proposing that "operand" would no longer be &= quot;quantifier" or "lerfu-string" (among other things) but = some new mixed entity. Whether this is a problem or not depends on your ide= a of simplicity, and whether or not it's worth striving for.
=
But seriously, if LI...LOh= O is messed with, breaking the functionality of {me'o} (and {li'ai}= ,=C2=A0
whic= h under your proposal might actually be now needed to quote things like R2D= 2 {li'ai ry re dy re} instead of using it as a bare sumti),

As a bare sumti. it's a pronoun, not = a name, so that doesn't seem to change. "li'ai ry re bu dy re = bu" for R2D2 would be much like "li'ai ny .a bu sy .a bu"= ; for NASA.=C2=A0

Under your proposal you would st= ill need "boi" or "lo'o" in cases such as "li&= #39;ai R2D2 [boi/lo'o/cu] za'u re'u cusku".

=
we'd be forced to come up = with a new selma'o just so we can quote arbitrary character strings wit= hout attaching {bu} to every nacle'u.

=
We now have to attach "bu" to every vowel, is that so = different? Lerfu-strings are relatively rare in usage. I just don't see= much need to have special rules for them.

mu'= o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--e89a8f6468c97d40ea05180874ce--