From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 18:47:37 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_3); 30 Jan 2003 02:47:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 48315 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2003 02:47:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Jan 2003 02:47:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 02:47:37 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030130024736.UEGG6744.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:47:36 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030129214022.0360fec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:47:50 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e In-Reply-To: <20030129174201.GZ28812@digitalkingdom.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030128171648.035ff220@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 09:42 AM 1/29/03 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:20:42AM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > > > > > For the original question - union as an operator would probably be > > > "jorne bu". I'll let someone else figuire out intersection. > > > > > > > That's good... but we still need different operators for finite union > > and union over a set. I guess we could use {ma'o brajo'e bu} for the > > second, in keeping with the "read symbols as letterals idea", and use > > nu'a to get the corresponding selbri... > > > > But I think it would be nicer to make lujvo with the right definitions > > (as we did earlier), then use either na'u or ma'o ... bu to get the > > operators. > >Dumb question: why are you guys adding bu? So you can use ma'o? I >guess the idea is that we're verbally representing the visual symbol? Correct. We have 8 different constructs in play here: lerfu strings quantifiers operands operators MEX expressions sumti brivla subscripts Each one of them can be converted to or incorporated into one of the others in a variety of ways that are more or less highly-marked. The problem is that people want to use lerfu as symbols or abbreviations for all of them. We should probably come up with a canonical list of all the conversions that people might want to make in order to use Mex effectively. The BNF has it all there, but doesn't show the intent of the design. Someone wanna start a wiki page? lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org