Re: [lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu"

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

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> I completely forgot to check the new definitions.
> 
> Fixed.

It's disheartening that you are "fixing" the parser instead of
the definition. Everybody seemed to agree that it made more
sense to not let bu be a zoi delimiter.

> As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was the
> commissioner's intention).

The commissioner was simply reproducing the official grammar,
which indeed had zoi bu ... bu as valid. The alternatives had
not been considered until now.

> Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu) might
> actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE ZEI BU.

Doea that mean that in {da bu zei bu}, zei wins?

> > I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu si
> > da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?
> 
> You never let up, do you?  :-)
> 
> No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase both BU
> and Y.

So {zo y bu si da} is ungrammatical?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/