Anyone remember what lerfu strings are actually *for*?

[Robin Lee Powell]

Someone tried to do:

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny ci mei" | camxes
text
BRIVLA
gismu: panzi

This doesn't work because it needs boi:

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny boi ci mei" | camxes
text
selbri3
|- tanruUnit1
| |- BRIVLA
| | gismu: panzi
| |- linkargs1
| |- CMAVO
| | BE: be
| |- sumti6
| |- CMAVO
| | BY: ny
| |- CMAVO
| BOI: boi
|- tanruUnit2
|- CMAVO
| PA: ci
|- CMAVO
MOI: mei

Why is that? Because otherwise it forms a "lerfu string".

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny ci" | camxes
text
tanruUnit1
|- BRIVLA
| gismu: panzi
|- linkargs1
|- CMAVO
| BE: be
|- lerfuString
|- CMAVO
| BY: ny
|- CMAVO
PA: ci

Which is useful for ... I dunno, reading out license plates? -_-

Does anyone remember why this is a fundamental type? I'm guessing
"complicated mekso shit", but I can't even think of any examples
there.

All the grammatical productions that use it:

sumti-6 <- ZO-clause free* / ZOI-clause free* / LOhU-clause free* / lerfu-string !MOI-clause BOI-clause? free* / LU-clause text LIhU-clause? free* / (LAhE-clause free* / NAhE-clause BO-clause free*) relative-clauses? sumti LUhU-clause? free* / KOhA-clause free* / LA-clause free* relative-clauses? CMENE-clause+ free* / (LA-clause / LE-clause) free* sumti-tail KU-clause? free* / li-clause

tanru-unit-2 <- BRIVLA-clause free* / GOhA-clause RAhO-clause? free* / KE-clause free* selbri-3 KEhE-clause? free* / ME-clause free* (sumti / lerfu-string) MEhU-clause? free* MOI-clause? free* / (number / lerfu-string) MOI-clause free* / NUhA-clause free* mex-operator / SE-clause free* tanru-unit-2 / JAI-clause free* tag? tanru-unit-2 / NAhE-clause free* tanru-unit-2 / NU-clause NAI-clause? free* (joik-jek NU-clause NAI-clause? free*)* subsentence KEI-clause? free*

operand-3 <- quantifier / lerfu-string !MOI-clause BOI-clause? free* / NIhE-clause free* selbri TEhU-clause? free* / MOhE-clause free* sumti TEhU-clause? free* / JOhI-clause free* mex-2+ TEhU-clause? free* / gek operand gik operand-3 / (LAhE-clause free* / NAhE-clause BO-clause free*) operand LUhU-clause? free*

lerfu-string <- lerfu-word (PA-clause / lerfu-word)*

; ** BU clauses are part of BY-clause
lerfu-word <- BY-clause / LAU-clause lerfu-word / TEI-clause lerfu-string FOI-clause

free <- SEI-clause free* (terms CU-clause? free*)? selbri SEhU-clause? / SOI-clause free* sumti sumti? SEhU-clause? / vocative relative-clauses? selbri relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? / vocative relative-clauses? CMENE-clause+ free* relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? / vocative sumti? DOhU-clause? / (number / lerfu-string) MAI-clause / TO-clause text TOI-clause? / xi-clause

xi-clause <- XI-clause free* (number / lerfu-string) BOI-clause? / XI-clause free* VEI-clause free* mex VEhO-clause?

The xi stuff is particularily 0.o

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> Does anyone remember why this is a fundamental type?  I'm guessing
> "complicated mekso shit", but I can't even think of any examples
> there.

lerfu strings have the same uses as single lerfu, basically as
pronouns: For example "by fy" for "la baupla fuzykamni", or "fy by
.ibu" for FBI.

The real problem is not lerfu strings but allowing numerals to mix
with lerfu strings, which causes unwanted fails like the one you found
in "panzi be ny ci mei". In the relatively rare cases where you do
need to include a numeral in an acronym this could be done with the
lerfu "pa bu", "re bu", "ci bu", etc. so you could do ".ubu rebu" if
you wanted to translate "U2" as an acronym.

See "number and lerfu-string" in
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/zasni+gerna+cenba+vreji

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 04:42:17PM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone remember why this is a fundamental type? �I'm
> > guessing "complicated mekso shit", but I can't even think of any
> > examples there.
>
> lerfu strings have the same uses as single lerfu, basically as
> pronouns: For example "by fy" for "la baupla fuzykamni", or "fy by
> .ibu" for FBI.
>
> The real problem is not lerfu strings but allowing numerals to mix
> with lerfu strings,

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

> which causes unwanted fails like the one you found in "panzi be ny
> ci mei". In the relatively rare cases where you do need to include
> a numeral in an acronym this could be done with the lerfu "pa bu",
> "re bu", "ci bu", etc. so you could do ".ubu rebu" if you wanted
> to translate "U2" as an acronym.
>
> See "number and lerfu-string" in
> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/zasni+gerna+cenba+vreji

Great, thanks.

[Luke Bergen]

Where would the jbocecmu be without you xorxes.

Are there any current dates or plans for a V2 of lojban?  i.e. a vote and acceptance by the byfy of all the changes proposals out there.  A final vote on all the existing proposals seems like it would be a significant enough set of changes that a second eddition of the CLL and maybe even a second freeze period was warranted, no?

On Mar 19, 2011 4:36 PM, "Robin Lee Powell" <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>

[Pierre Abbat]

On Saturday 19 March 2011 15:42:17 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> The real problem is not lerfu strings but allowing numerals to mix
> with lerfu strings, which causes unwanted fails like the one you found
> in "panzi be ny ci mei". In the relatively rare cases where you do
> need to include a numeral in an acronym this could be done with the
> lerfu "pa bu", "re bu", "ci bu", etc. so you could do ".ubu rebu" if
> you wanted to translate "U2" as an acronym.

I think mixing letters and numerals should continue to be allowed. A string of
letters or numbers is quite common, such as VINs. Currently such a string can
be stated by saying "me'o" followed by the lervla ja nacyvla and, if
needed, "boi" at the end, regardless of whether the first character is a
numeral or not (which makes a difference if it's used as a quantifier rather
than preceded by "me'o").

A couple of notes:
1. words like "rau" can also be used in lervla strings though they don't
correspond to any letter.
2. the "a" and "c" in 2001:0:53aa:64c:: (a Teredo IPv6 address) are not abu
and cy. That is li renonopa pi'e no pi'e mucidaudau pi'e xavogai pi'epi'e. If
we adopt the convention that "ki'o" in hex means powers of 65536, it's also
the same with "ki'o" instead of "pi'e", but it has to end with four "ki'o".
3. "li" usually does not make sense with mixed letter-number strings,
but "me'o" does.

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 08:12:55PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> On Saturday 19 March 2011 15:42:17 Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> > The real problem is not lerfu strings but allowing numerals to
> > mix with lerfu strings, which causes unwanted fails like the one
> > you found in "panzi be ny ci mei". In the relatively rare cases
> > where you do need to include a numeral in an acronym this could
> > be done with the lerfu "pa bu", "re bu", "ci bu", etc. so you
> > could do ".ubu rebu" if you wanted to translate "U2" as an
> > acronym.
>
> I think mixing letters and numerals should continue to be allowed.
> A string of letters or numbers is quite common, such as VINs.

This comes up regularily in conversation for you? *Seriously*? So
much so that adding {bu} is a heavy-handed restriction? I don't
believe you.

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 05:06:57PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> Where would the jbocecmu be without you xorxes.
>
> Are there any current dates or plans for a V2 of lojban? i.e. a vote and
> acceptance by the byfy of all the changes proposals out there.

More or less.

> A final vote on all the existing proposals seems like it would be
> a significant enough set of changes that a second eddition of the
> CLL and maybe even a second freeze period was warranted, no?

Yes and probably not, resp.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Saturday 19 March 2011 20:19:47 Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> This comes up regularily in conversation for you? *Seriously*? So
> much so that adding {bu} is a heavy-handed restriction? I don't
> believe you.

Just last week I drew a survey of lot 28A, or something like that, in block A,
and I had to refer to both maps to figure out that the A in 28A is not the
block letter. (Blocks are more often denoted by numbers, but sometimes by
letters. Either way I'd use "moi" in Lojban.) The old map had been revised,
and the new map had more blocks than the ones they replaced, so they
added "A" to the block numbers, giving a lot 6 in block A (on the old map)
next to lot 6A in block A (on the new map, being most of lot 5 on the old).
I'd say "lo rebi.abumoi tumspi be lo .abumoi tumbli" (or whatever the word is
for "block" on a plat). I've also seen map numbers with A or B on the end,
which does not occur in Mecklenburg County, but is common in one of the
adjacent counties.

Pierre
--
Jews use a lunisolar calendar; Muslims use a solely lunar calendar.

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:52:33PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Saturday 19 March 2011 20:19:47 Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > This comes up regularily in conversation for you? *Seriously*?
> > So much so that adding {bu} is a heavy-handed restriction? I
> > don't believe you.
>
> Just last week

Exactly.

[Michael Turniansky]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 05:06:57PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
>> Where would the jbocecmu be without you xorxes.
>>
>> Are there any current dates or plans for a V2 of lojban?  i.e. a vote and
>> acceptance by the byfy of all the changes proposals out there.
>
> More or less.
>

RIGHT UP THERE, Robin! "V2".... Yes, it comes up a lot, and I
like things the way they are. I think it comes up more commonly than
the need to add boi (which I've had to do, like thrice in 6 years.
(well, okay it came up twice in Esther. Which reminds me.. happy
Purim, everyone.. time to read your megillat Esther in lojban)
--gejyspa

>> A final vote on all the existing proposals seems like it would be
>> a significant enough set of changes that a second eddition of the
>> CLL and maybe even a second freeze period was warranted, no?
>
> Yes and probably not, resp.
>
> -Robin
>
> --
> http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
> Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
> is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
> is "na nei".   My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
>

[Oren]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 23:35, Michael Turniansky <mturn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Which reminds me.. happy

Purim, everyone.. time to read your megillat Esther in lojban)
                        --gejyspa

How do you boo and hiss in Lojban? =p 

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:35:06PM -0400, Michael Turniansky wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 05:06:57PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> >> Where would the jbocecmu be without you xorxes.
> >>
> >> Are there any current dates or plans for a V2 of lojban? �i.e. a vote and
> >> acceptance by the byfy of all the changes proposals out there.
> >
> > More or less.
> >
>
> RIGHT UP THERE, Robin! "V2"....

Why would you say "v2" in that context *in Lojban*? You would say
"re moi [something]".

I seriously cannot remember *ever* having to do anything like that
in actual Lojban conversation.

[Ian Johnson]

Only problem with this argument is that afaict it winds up requiring a lot of {bu} when it requires any (Pierre's example winds up being {re bu bi bu .abu}), whereas {panzi be ny ci mei} is fixed by just one terminator. But then, the problem with {panzi be ny ci mei} is that you get in a habit of thinking of BY strings as being like KOhA, and ending when the lerfu end or when boi appears...and then you're wrong, because what you thought were BY strings are actually BY-and/or-PA strings. Which seems rather opposite to the whole "regular" thing. (Even though it actually is regular, it doesn't *feel* regular at all; does that count for anything?)

mu'o mi'e .latros.

--

[Jonathan Jones]

.a'unaicairo'e

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Ian Johnson]

Or {.oicai}, or...

mu'o mi'e .latros.

[Robin Lee Powell]

Yes, it is much more the violation of least-surprise that bothers
me, rather than the needed terminator.

-Robin

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only problem with this argument is that afaict it winds up requiring a lot
> of {bu} when it requires any (Pierre's example winds up being {re bu bi bu
> .abu}),

Pierre's example was a number, not a lerfu string. The lerfu string
"re bu bi bu .a bu" is not really a replacement for the number "re bi
.a bu".

For "28-A" I would use "re bi xi .a bu", since the "A" there is
working as a specifier of the number 28.

Some examples of lerfu strings with numbers are also sometimes better
handled with "xi" instead of converting the digits into lerfu.

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Ian Johnson wrote:

> Only problem with this argument is that afaict it winds up
> requiring a lot of {bu} when it requires any (Pierre's example
> winds up being {re bu bi bu .abu}), whereas {panzi be ny ci mei}
> is fixed by just one terminator.

I just want to point out that while {panzi be ny ci mei} is a fairly
degenerate example, this is actually quite a common issue. The
following is na gendra, for example:

vy ci nimre cu dunda mi

because "vy ci" is taken as a pro-sumti. If that doesn't surprise
you at first glance, you've internalized the grammar a lot better
than I have (or anyone else I know; people screw this up pretty
regularily, when it comes up).

[Luke Bergen]

I wasn't surprised that {vy ci} was taken as a pro-sumti (though I'm not sure that I would have predicted it).  I would be surprised if {ci vy} wasn't 3 v's (whatever v's are).

[Robin Lee Powell]

Then you get to be surprised, because it is not; it's a "ci vy"
amount of lemons:

rlpowell@chain> echo "ci vy nimre cu dunda mi" | camxes
text
sentence
|- sumti5
| |- number

| | |- CMAVO
| | | PA: ci
| | |- CMAVO

| | BY: vy
| |- BRIVLA
| gismu: nimre
|- CMAVO
| CU: cu
|- bridiTail3
|- BRIVLA
| gismu: dunda
|- CMAVO
KOhA: mi

i.e. {ci vy nimre} is the x1, and {mi} is the x2.

-Robin

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 06:57:45PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> I wasn't surprised that {vy ci} was taken as a pro-sumti (though

> I'm not sure that I would have predicted it). I *would* be

[Michael Turniansky]

Yeah, digit strings with lerfu are mentioned only in passing, and with
no examples, in the CLL in 18.19.6-7. I agree that those are not
nearly as useful as lerfu strings with digits (unless you are trying
to write a base 36 number, or something???)
--gejyspa

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Robin Lee Powell

[Lindar]

I would just like to point out that I really hate the convention of {.a bu} for "the letter A". To me, that's "The letter 'OR'", and it looks weird.

Also, for my two cents, I find nothing wrong with letters and numbers forming a single string.

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Lindar wrote:
> I would just like to point out that I really hate the convention
> of {.a bu} for "the letter A". To me, that's "The letter 'OR'",
> and it looks weird.

That's nice, dear.

> Also, for my two cents, I find nothing wrong with letters and
> numbers forming a single string.

Did you actually look at my later examples? Do they *really* not
startle you?

[MorphemeAddict]

So how would you say "the letter A"?

 

stevo

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Lindar <lindar...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I would just like to point out that I really hate the convention of {.a bu} for "the letter A". To me, that's "The letter 'OR'", and it looks weird.

Also, for my two cents, I find nothing wrong with letters and numbers forming a single string.

--

[Robin Lee Powell]

(I am not lindar. Alot.)

I kind of like the {.alfas. bu} series in the CLL.

-Robin

--

[Luke Bergen]

On Mar 22, 2011 6:05 PM, "Robin Lee Powell" <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:54:00PM -0700, Lindar wrote:
> > I would just like to point out that I really hate the convention
> > of {.a bu} for "the letter A". To me, that's "The letter 'OR'",
> > and it looks weird.
>
> That's nice, dear.

.u'icai

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Lindar <lindar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would just like to point out that I really hate the convention of {.a bu}
> for "the letter A". To me, that's "The letter 'OR'", and it looks weird.

A fortunate side effect of having an insane number of words for OR is
that we can use "ja bu" for the logical disjunction symbol and still
keep ".a bu" for A.

[Lindar]

I liked the proposal for *{.V'y} to match the pattern of the consonants. Then they could also be used as pro-sumti!

However, that's now outside the scope of the conversation.

Regarding the lerfu string stuff, I terminate my lerfu! I always terminate {li} whether it's necessary or not, and I always use {boi} if there are two unrelated adjacent strings. However, I don't recall having to use that many times because it rarely comes up.

However, I have a giant boner for fa'orma'o in general, and I tend to -over- use them if anything...

[Luke Bergen]

wait wait wait wait wait.  Back the fun-bus the fuck up.  Lindar has a boner for terminators?!  I'd never have guessed ;)

--

[Michael Turniansky]

Yeah, that's why his partner always has to tell him to "end it, already!"

[Jonathan Jones]

You're surprised at this? Really? Lindar's always talking about the wonderful world of terminators, and how much better they are than {cu} (not that they are, but whatever), and it's always fa'orma'o this, fa'orma'o that....

I believe he actually got engaged to {ku} for awhile, but she broke it off because she felt he was too needy, and she didn't like being put to work quite that often. :D

[Luke Bergen]

Oh snap. You did NOT just apply gender to a jbovla you sonofabitch

[Jonathan Jones]

I did. Whatcha gonna do about it? .u'i

to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. fonxa toi
mu'o mi'e.aionys.

On Mar 23, 2011 3:25 PM, "Luke Bergen" <lukea...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh snap. You did NOT just apply gender to a jbovla you sonofabitch

On Mar 23, 2011 5:21 PM, "Jonathan Jones" <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're surprised at this? R...

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

> To pos...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To po...

[Ian Johnson]

*Necro*

I found a rationale for this when reading over some sections of the CLL:

http://dag.github.com/cll/17/8/
In short, when writing out pinyin, this system lets you put in tone numbers. Any thoughts? Personally I think this is somewhat of a boundary issue if you will.

mu'o mi'e .latros.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

Someone tried to do:

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny ci mei" | camxes
text
  BRIVLA
     gismu: panzi

This doesn't work because it needs boi:

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny boi ci mei" | camxes
text
  selbri3
  |- tanruUnit1
  |  |- BRIVLA
  |  |     gismu: panzi
  |  |- linkargs1
  |     |- CMAVO
  |     |     BE: be
  |     |- sumti6
  |        |- CMAVO
  |        |     BY: ny
  |        |- CMAVO
  |              BOI: boi
  |- tanruUnit2

     |- CMAVO
     |     PA: ci
     |- CMAVO

           MOI: mei

Why is that?  Because otherwise it forms a "lerfu string".

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny ci" | camxes
text
  tanruUnit1
  |- BRIVLA
  |     gismu: panzi
  |- linkargs1
     |- CMAVO
     |     BE: be
     |- lerfuString
        |- CMAVO
        |     BY: ny
        |- CMAVO
              PA: ci

Which is useful for ... I dunno, reading out license plates?  -_-

Does anyone remember why this is a fundamental type?  I'm guessing
"complicated mekso shit", but I can't even think of any examples
there.

All the grammatical productions that use it:

 sumti-6 <- ZO-clause free* / ZOI-clause free* / LOhU-clause free* / lerfu-string !MOI-clause BOI-clause? free* / LU-clause text LIhU-clause? free* / (LAhE-clause free* / NAhE-clause BO-clause free*) relative-clauses? sumti LUhU-clause? free* / KOhA-clause free* / LA-clause free* relative-clauses? CMENE-clause+ free* / (LA-clause / LE-clause) free* sumti-tail KU-clause? free* / li-clause

 tanru-unit-2 <- BRIVLA-clause free* / GOhA-clause RAhO-clause? free* / KE-clause free* selbri-3 KEhE-clause? free* / ME-clause free* (sumti / lerfu-string) MEhU-clause? free* MOI-clause? free* / (number / lerfu-string) MOI-clause free* / NUhA-clause free* mex-operator / SE-clause free* tanru-unit-2 / JAI-clause free* tag? tanru-unit-2 / NAhE-clause free* tanru-unit-2 / NU-clause NAI-clause? free* (joik-jek NU-clause NAI-clause? free*)* subsentence KEI-clause? free*

 operand-3 <- quantifier / lerfu-string !MOI-clause BOI-clause? free* / NIhE-clause free* selbri TEhU-clause? free* / MOhE-clause free* sumti TEhU-clause? free* / JOhI-clause free* mex-2+ TEhU-clause? free* / gek operand gik operand-3 / (LAhE-clause free* / NAhE-clause BO-clause free*) operand LUhU-clause? free*

 lerfu-string <- lerfu-word (PA-clause / lerfu-word)*

 ; ** BU clauses are part of BY-clause
 lerfu-word <- BY-clause / LAU-clause lerfu-word / TEI-clause lerfu-string FOI-clause

 free <- SEI-clause free* (terms CU-clause? free*)? selbri SEhU-clause? / SOI-clause free* sumti sumti? SEhU-clause? / vocative relative-clauses? selbri relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? / vocative relative-clauses? CMENE-clause+ free* relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? / vocative sumti? DOhU-clause? / (number / lerfu-string) MAI-clause / TO-clause text TOI-clause? / xi-clause

 xi-clause <- XI-clause free* (number / lerfu-string) BOI-clause? / XI-clause free* VEI-clause free* mex VEhO-clause?

The xi stuff is particularily 0.o

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei".   My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Mark E. Shoulson]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

Someone tried to do:

rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny ci mei" | camxes
text
  BRIVLA
     gismu: panzi

This doesn't work because it needs boi:

Lerfu-strings are pro-sumti.  Just like "ny." is a pro-sumti, and "ny.ibu" or whatever, so is "ny. ci".

OK, yeah, the case of XI lerfu-string is unusual in that case.

~mark

[Robin Lee Powell]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:25:57PM -0400, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Robin Lee Powell

> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org <mailto:rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org>>

> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Someone tried to do:
> >
> > rlpowell@chain> echo "panzi be ny ci mei" | camxes
> > text
> > BRIVLA
> > gismu: panzi
> >
> > This doesn't work because it needs boi:
> >
>
> Lerfu-strings are pro-sumti. Just like "ny." is a pro-sumti, and
> "ny.ibu" or whatever, so is "ny. ci".

Yes, I understand that, I just think it's horrible. The usefulness
of "a number starts a new sumti" *far* outways the usefulness of
being able to refer to C3PO without additional effort.

However, see the Mandarin comment; that's potentially of at least
*some* use, but honestly I think requiring an extra sumti or two in
that case (i.e. wrap them in lo'u ... le'u) is perfectly reasonable.