Re: [lojban] lujvo for "spelling"? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] How do you write "Eyjafjallajökull"? (a sentence from tatoeba))

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. lo'u ... le'u is not equivalent to a string of zo-quotes placed in a
> sequence using ce'o. It is equivalent to a single lu .. li'u qutoe, except
> that the internal contents only need to be in Lojban, they do not need to be
> grammatical.
>

That's one way to see it. A grammatical quote differs fundamentally
from a multi-word quote in that inside a grammatical quote, the words
actually interact. {lo'u a bu le'u} is fundamentally different from
{lu a bu li'u}. Inside the lu-quote, bu is actually a magic word,
unlike when inside a lo'u-quote (check in jbofi'e, I'm not kidding
you).

Well then, based on that, I would say that we don't want to use lo'u ... le'u.

Regardless, I wasn't asserting that a lo'u...le'u quote be equivalent
to a sequence of zo-quotes; I was simply telling you that's how I see
it, considering that pretty much any other interpretation of it fails.
In fact, the CLL in that aforementioned chapter, uses a lu-quote to
quote {abu} rather than a lo'u-quote. I presume that it's for the very
good reason that {bu} is not magical inside a lo'u-quote.

>>
>> Using {la'e lu abu by cy li'u} is wrong on a different level, because
>> inside a lu..li'u words INTERACT with each other, such that all those
>> BY (and ABU) compound to form one variable.
>
>
> I fail to see how "the referent of 'b a r d a'" is wrong on /any/ level, but
> it's not a moot point, because I wasn't suggesting that it's the correct way
> to do things, but merely that it's GRAMMATICAL.
>

Like I've said it already, the lu-quote produces one meaningful lump
of text, whereas the lo'u-quote produces a sequence of words. Inside a
lu-quote, words get parsed and INTERACT with each other (I dreadfully
feel like I'm repeating myself). This causes all the BY to collide and
form ONE SINGLE VARIABLE. Because we want to get at the individual
letters, allowing them to merge as such is undesired. Therefore, using
a lu-quote is unuseful for this purpose.

Yeah, I don't see how. Out side of a lu .. li'u, each BY would fill a separate sumti in a bridi, they don't clump together into one thing. The mere act of quoting a series of letterals doesn't cause them to become "one single variable".

As it apparently wasn't clear, the level on which {la'e lu by abu ry
dy abu li'u} is wrong is a SEMANTIC level. Obviously, it's grammatical
-- I never argued that point.