Re: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:06:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:42:08AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > {zei zei da} at the beginning of text?
> > In other words, it creates a lujvo that means "zei type-of da".
> > 
> > Which is what I think a human would expect.
> 
> Yes, except that it is a funny lujvo that can only appear at the
> beginning of a text. I suppose {zei bu} is also a BY? Again, it can
> only appear at the beginning of a text.

What?

My parser handles it exactly the same way in "mi broda lo zei zei da"
and "mi broda zei zei da".

"zei bu" you seem to be correct on, and that follows from their relative
priorities.  I've just told BU to not work on ZEI, ever, to avoid that
special case.

> > > In {zo da si de}, {zo da bu}, {zo da zei de}, we have zo and
> > > something else fighting over the same word, one pulling from the
> > > left and the other from the right. We just have to define which
> > > one has priority, and the other one should act on what remains.
> > 
> > I don't see any reason to over-ride grammar.300 on that point: ZO
> > has higher priority.  But then we're back to whether or not SI eats
> > more than one word, which grammar.300 says it does not.
> 
> When zo fights with these words directly, it always wins:
> {zo si}, {zo bu}, {zo zei}, so I don't see any reason for it not to
> win when it fights with them over a third word. If {zo da} can be a
> single word for {bu} and for {zei} to grab, 

Is that exactly the question that we're discussing?  As far as I can
tell, zo da is *never* considered a single word.

The official parser doesn't accept "zo da bu", nor "zo da zei broda", so
I'm not sure where you get the idea that "{zo da} can be a single word
for {bu} and for {zei} to grab" ?

> It is also possible to decide that when there is an intervening word,
> zo loses: so {zo (da si de)}. But then why not {zo (da bu)} and {zo
> (da zei de)}? 

da'i I was arguing for that position[1], I would say that it's because
deletion of a single quoted word makes sense, but using an
already-quoted word in another context does not.

-Robin

[1]: At this point, I have no idea what I'm arguing for, I'm just
confused.

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***  I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/  ***  loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi