[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> My parser handles it exactly the same way in "mi broda lo zei zei da"
> and "mi broda zei zei da".

How come those are not "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.

When you have "zei zei" you have to decide which one acts as glue
and which one as lujvo component. Why would you take the second one
as glue?

> > 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.

In the current grammar, that's correct.

> 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" ?

If "da zei de" can be a single word for bu, why can't
"zo da" be a single word for bu?

Do you prefer to leave {zo a bu} as broken instead of giving it
one of the two obvious possible meanings? 

mu'o mi'e xorxes




	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover