coi la banpla fuzykamni
I have a question about the interaction of BAhE and BU.
For grammatical purposes, "ba'e" marks the following word but does not change its nature, and does not bind with it or form a single unified construct in any way.
And "lerfu forming cmavo" says this:
Combines with the previous word to make a Lojban letteral, provided that it is not one of the quote cmavo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one of the erasure cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAhE, or FAhO.
However, "nonce connectives" also includes this example:
- ko pensi me'o depsna bu .e me'o ba'e bu
- Think about "hesitation sound", and the emphasis letter.
I read "emphasis letter" as a translation of {ba'e bu}, which would seem to indicate that it has formed a Lojban letteral. I would also interpret this as a "binding" between {ba'e} and {bu} to "form a single unified construct". So it would appear that this example is not consistent with the definitions. The parsers are also at odds: YACC and jbofihe reject {ba'e bu}, and camxes accepts it.
I assume that whatever is true for {ba'e bu} is also true for {za'e bu}, but I'm confused by the seemingly contradictory statements that {za'e} is "grammatically identical to za'e" and yet "for grammatical purposes, {za'e} binds with and marks the following word". It would seem that whatever it means to "bind" the following word, it's not a grammatically significant operation, since {ba'e} and {za'e} differ in that aspect.
Can anyone shed light on these issues? Thank you!
--Riley
mi'e la mukti mu'o