Re: [lojban] Re: shorthand for conversations

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> But if you saw:
> 
>     la .alis. cusku lu pamoi jufra li'u 
>     la .bab. cusku lu remoi jufra li'u
>     la .alis. zo'u cimoi jufra
> 
> you would understand what had just happened, right?

I would probably understand, but that doesn't make it right,
or desirable, or whatever. I would understand this too:

  alis: coi bab
  bab: coi alis

In the case of a play, something like that is what should be used 
probably, because "alis:" and "bab:" are not meant to be pronounced 
by anyone, so they need not be a part of the parsable text.

> If it's really an issue of confusion, the author just has to say:
> 
>     mi pilno lu ko'a zo'u jufra li'u le sinxa be lu ko'a cusku lu
>     jufra li'u li'u
> 
> at the top somewhere.

And give up the use of zo'u with its normal meaning in the whole
text? Seems like too high a price to pay. Also, it means that
if you want to quote some short part of the text that doesn't
include the introduction you have to explain that the use of zo'u 
is nonstandard.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus