[lojban] Re: Projects

[Philip Newton <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

reverendzow wrote:

> > > Additionally, I am finding a need for a schematically
> > > defined syntax for Lojban.
> >
> > Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by that?
> 
> Essentially, this is a series of structural definitions like:
>
> a bridi is one of the following:
> * a sumti, followed by a selbri, followed by 0-4 sumti, depending
> on which selbri is used
> * a sumti, followed by {se|te|ve|xe}, followed by a selbri, followed
> by 0-4 sumti, depending on which selbri is used
> * etc.

Couldn't you use the current grammar, either in YACC or BNF form? It
pretty much says how a legal utterance can be composed.

Also note that a bridi needn't be sumti + selbri + 0*sumti; the sumti
can come in any order, with the proviso (AIUI) that if all sumti occur
after the selbri, counting starts at x2 rather than x1.

So {mi le zarci le zdani cu klama} means the same as {mi cu klama le
zarci le zdani} or {mi le zarci cu klama le zdani}, or even {klama le
zarci fa mi le zdani}.

Also, the grammar (AIUI, again) doesn't constrain how many sumti can
be used depending on the selbri - {mi blanu le zdanu le ckule} is
grammatical, though I don't think a meaning can be interpreted from it
since {blanu} only has one tersu'i.

> > Can you then form a lujvo by doing gismuzeigismu?  Either way,
> > I feel I'll need some clarification on the formation of lujvo.

You mean {gismu zei gismu} (three words, not one)? Then yes (as I
understand it).

That is, {broda zei brode} is the same as {rodbo'e} for all {broda} and {brode}.

mu'o mi'e .filip.
-- 
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>