So in this system "cu" becomes a generic shortcut for <insert all terminators that are applicable except for vau>?
... sounds cool if I'm understanding it correctly (probably not)
On Oct 31, 2010 1:31 PM, "Robin Lee Powell" <
rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> Something that I and some others have talked about on IRC a few
> times is "Wow, cu is pretty useful when deeply nested; wouldn't it
> be nice to have something like that that could work in other places
> besides before the selbri?".
>
> This turns out to be surprisingly tricky; many ideas have been shown
> to be unworkable.
>
> I think I might finally have something: mark FA as needing
> terminator closure before it. Example:
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti fi le nu zutse
>
> vs.
>
> mi denpa le nu do xruti cu fi le nu zutse
>
> "cu fi" means "close terminators, at least one, until a fi is
> allowed". More than one cu would be allowed there, with the obvious
> effect.
>
> Please note that I am NOT attached to "cu" here; a postfix new cmavo
> (i.e. "fi xu'u"), or whatever, would be fine. (IIRC postfix is
> easier in terms of grammatical simplicity, but it's been a while).
>
> -Robin
>
> --
>
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
> Lojban (
http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
> is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
> is "na nei". My personal page:
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>