[lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu"

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 17, 2004, 1:06:31 PM5/17/04
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 11:05:25PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On the other thread, I do think "zo .y." is a Good Thing, but I'm
> willing to be persuaded otherwise

It seems like it would be very common for newbies to hesitate while
thinking of a word that they would like to ask about. Also see my
examples in the other thread.

I am, of course, more than happy to be overruled by the BPFK when it
gets to the various words in question.

> (presumably requiring "zoi zoi .y. zoi"?).

Correct.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi

Jorge Llamb�as

unread,
May 17, 2004, 3:57:05 PM5/17/04
to loj...@yahoogroups.com

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> I completely forgot to check the new definitions.
>
> Fixed.

It's disheartening that you are "fixing" the parser instead of
the definition. Everybody seemed to agree that it made more
sense to not let bu be a zoi delimiter.

> As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was the
> commissioner's intention).

The commissioner was simply reproducing the official grammar,
which indeed had zoi bu ... bu as valid. The alternatives had
not been considered until now.

> Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu) might
> actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE ZEI BU.

Doea that mean that in {da bu zei bu}, zei wins?

> > I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu si
> > da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?
>
> You never let up, do you? :-)
>
> No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase both BU
> and Y.

So {zo y bu si da} is ungrammatical?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/


John Cowan

unread,
May 16, 2004, 11:05:25 PM5/16/04
to rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org, loj...@yahoogroups.com
Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Is "bu bu" valid? I know "da bu bu" is, but that's not the same thing.

I call them junk. If they happen to work at beginning of text, that's
a pointless artifact. Rule them out.

On the other thread, I do think "zo .y." is a Good Thing, but I'm willing

to be persuaded otherwise (presumably requiring "zoi zoi .y. zoi"?).

--
My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing: jco...@reutershealth.com
I'd use DTDs http://www.reutershealth.com
If they had local trees -- http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lojban-un...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Jorge Llamb�as

unread,
May 17, 2004, 1:32:30 PM5/17/04
to lojba...@lojban.org

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> I am, of course, more than happy to be overruled by the BPFK when it
> gets to the various words in question.

Perhaps we should revisit at some point the definition approved
for "bu":

bu
Combines with the previous word to make a Lojban letteral, provided
that it is not one of the quote cmavo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one
of the erasure cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAhE, or FAhO. [...]

if {zoi bu} is now to be allowed.

I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}.
Does {zo y bu si da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 17, 2004, 2:43:20 PM5/17/04
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:38:10AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:32:30AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu si
> > da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?
>
> No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase both
> BU and Y.

On a related note, I am coming to truly hate ybu.

Jorge Llamb�as

unread,
May 15, 2004, 9:44:53 PM5/15/04
to lojba...@lojban.org

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> Is "bu bu" valid? I know "da bu bu" is, but that's not the same thing.

The official parser accepts both "bu bu" and "zei bu" at the
beginning of text. They should be either both valid or both invalid.

> (It's also an argument for BU acting on multi-word things like zei).

Right.

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 17, 2004, 2:38:10 PM5/17/04
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:32:30AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > I am, of course, more than happy to be overruled by the BPFK when it
> > gets to the various words in question.
>
> Perhaps we should revisit at some point the definition approved for
> "bu":
>
> bu
> Combines with the previous word to make a Lojban letteral, provided
> that it is not one of the quote cmavo (ZO, ZOI, LOhU, LEhU) or one of
> the erasure cmavo (SI, SA, SU), ZEI, BAhE, or FAhO. [...]

/kick self

I completely forgot to check the new definitions.

Fixed.

As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was the
commissioner's intention).

Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu) might


actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE ZEI BU.

> I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu si


> da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?

You never let up, do you? :-)

No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase both BU
and Y.

-Robin

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 15, 2004, 8:35:19 PM5/15/04
to lojba...@lojban.org
Is "bu bu" valid? I know "da bu bu" is, but that's not the same thing.

(It's also an argument for BU acting on multi-word things like zei).

-Robin

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 16, 2004, 3:09:13 PM5/16/04
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:44:53PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > Is "bu bu" valid? I know "da bu bu" is, but that's not the same
> > thing.
>
> The official parser accepts both "bu bu" and "zei bu" at the beginning
> of text. They should be either both valid or both invalid.

They are both invalid in my parser. ("zei bu"? TF?)

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 17, 2004, 4:10:32 PM5/17/04
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:57:05PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > I completely forgot to check the new definitions.
> >
> > Fixed.
>
> It's disheartening that you are "fixing" the parser instead of the
> definition.

I don't have the power to single-handedly fix the definitions. If you
want to propose that the BPFK revisit this issue, please feel absolutely
free.

> Everybody seemed to agree that it made more sense to not let bu be a
> zoi delimiter.

I actually don't much care one way or the other at this point.

What would "zoi bu" mean if it was allowed?

> > As an obvious side-effect, zoi bu ... bu is valid (as I assume was
> > the commissioner's intention).
>
> The commissioner was simply reproducing the official grammar, which
> indeed had zoi bu ... bu as valid. The alternatives had not been
> considered until now.

True.

> > Similarily, "bu zei bu" now works, which (unlike zoi bu ... bu)
> > might actually be useful for naming really wierd letters using CMENE
> > ZEI BU.
>

> Does that mean that in {da bu zei bu}, zei wins?

That does follow, yes, as the other possible parse results in an error.

> > > I understand {zo y bu si si da} reduces to {zo da}. Does {zo y bu
> > > si da} reduce to {zo y da}, i.e. {zo da} too?
> >
> > You never let up, do you? :-)
> >
> > No, it does not, because that would require a single SI to erase
> > both BU and Y.
>
> So {zo y bu si da} is ungrammatical?

Sorry, I'm working on this still, I'll get back to you.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages