Actually, instead of pretending to be a string of {vau}, perhaps it'd be better just for it to auto-close with all famyma'o that a simple {.i} would (but without actually starting a new sentence). This way it can even close off sentences that do not actually have bridi (and thus no possible {vau}); for example {coi lo tavla pe la .lojban. vau'u ui}. Will probably be easier to code too.
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 4:04:48 PM UTC+8, Spheniscine wrote:I think it might be useful to have a new cmavo, {vau'u}, which is in its own selma'o. It would act as a "super famyma'o / super vau"; acting as any number of {vau}s needed to close off a sentence.Why? Attitudinals, mostly; it'd allow adding attitudinals as an afterthought, attaching it to the entire sentence rather than the last thing in it. {vau} is sufficient for simple sentences (e.g. {do sidju mi vau ui}), but more complex sentences with subclauses at the end may require several {vau}, which just feels wrong. For exampleInstead of: {do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau vau vau ui}You can have: {do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau'u ui}--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.