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

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:28:11PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > While I'm at it, if ZO+word and ZOI+clause are treated as one word,
> > then "zo .y. si co valsi" is invalid, right?
> 
> I was going to ask what you do with {y}.

Oh, don't ask that.  :-)

Seriously, it's *very* complicated.  Y is utterly ignored, except
where it's not, where special cases are used to catch it.

Basically, Y is caught anywhere that *any* Lojban word would normally be
valid, so it can be used in ZEI, BU, ZOI, and ZO.  Probably some others.
As an *extra* special case, it cannot have BAhE applied to it, because
that would just be silly.

> I would propose that {y} be totally ignored, so {zoi y gy ... gy}
> should be valid. Then you couldn't quote it with {zo}, you'd have to
> say {zoi ly y ly}... But then {.y.bu} would require special
> treatment... It's really weird that you can't hesitate after certain
> words, especially after zoi, which is a place where I expect
> hesitation, while you think of an appropriate delimiter.

Yeah, it's complicated.

> In any case, responding to your question, yes {zo ca si co valsi}
> would be invalid. 

Because it's equivalent to "co valsi", correct?

> It is invalid now, according to grammar .300, but for a different
> reason.

Right.

-Robin

-- 
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