[lojban] "zo da bu" should not be valid (was Re: Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI)

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

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:37:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> Do you prefer to leave {zo a bu} as broken instead of giving it one of
> the two obvious possible meanings? 

I've spent a good portion of my free time since you posted this thinking
about this issue.  It turns out that the answer is "Yes".

There's a simple reason for this: it's the only solution that fits the
current cmavo definitions.

zo takes a single Lojban word.  bu takes a single Lobjan word.  si takes
as single word, or an arbitrary string of non-Lojban text.

This is how they are defined.

zo is not defined as "takes a single word, or a word+bu".  bu is not
defined as "takes a single word, or word+zo".  You get the idea.

"zo da bu" should fail for basically the same reason that "zo ije broda"
fails.  That's a perfectly the reasonable mistake for a new user to
make, since ije is used all the time as though it were a single word,
but zo takes one word, and only one.  Similarily, "jenai bu broda"
fails, and should, for the same reason.

In "zo da bu", both zo and bu are trying to take the same word.  This
can't work: they both take one word.  No more, no less.  Since there's
only one word for them to share, the expression fails.  More precisely,
the expression fails because zo already ate da by the time we get to bu.

If the BPFK decides to change the word definitions, that's fine, but in
the meantime, I'm going with what I've got.

This means the "zoi takes 4 si" thing still stands, because that's how
si is defined.

If I've missed anything, tell me, but I don't think I have.

-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