[lojban] Re: Double-checking: "bu bu"
Robin Lee Powell
> 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
--- 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
> 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
> 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
> 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?
>
> BU and Y.
On a related note, I am coming to truly hate ybu.
Jorge Llamb�as
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
>
> > 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
(It's also an argument for BU acting on multi-word things like zei).
-Robin
Robin Lee Powell
>
> --- 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
>
> --- 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.