Jorge Llambías wrote:
The proposed "di'ai" cannot be added to any selma'o, because it is a meta-syntactic indication to the pre-parser to merge two texts into one before parsing, it is not something that can be part of the formal grammar. It has to be processed before you feed the input to the parser, indeed as part of deciding what to feed to the parser.
If it is a word in Lojban then it is part of some selma'o. A few selma'o in the current (YACC baseline) language are necessarily processed by a preparser, and do not even have stated rules in the grammar.
The other observation is that whatever we are trying for is metalinguistic in nature, and thus can probably be expressed using SEI.Not really. SEI is meta-semantic, but what some people are asking for is meta-syntactic, which is not somethiing SEI can handle.
SEI can handle whatever we want it to handle, by definition, so long as it can be stated in Lojban. It is possible in SEI to state that the current text is to be rewritten in reverse and reparsed on that basis, or any other silly rule, for that matter.
Similarly, the limits on vocatives are whatever we deem them to be. One can probably come up with cases that cause problems under any rule (like what happens if you interrupt someone's incomplete vocative or metalinguistic statement). But I suspect that could happen no matter what solution you come up with. (Does Lojban have to accept a Godel's Theorem limitation?)
lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.