On 13 July 2012 00:15, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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".
>