WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo

BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo


admin posts: 208
Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo page.


admin posts: 208

I'm going to be a bit critical in a second, but first of all, thank you so much for doing this work!

That goes to everyone in the BPFK: please assume that everything I say is prefaced with "Thank you for contributing! You're amazing!". Unless what I say is "Go stick your head in a pig", in which case, well, you know what to do.

OK, now.

First of all, I'd really love to see all proposed cmavo definitions come with both positive and negative examples of usage if that seems even vaguely reasonable. That may just be me, though.

Secondly, your definitions of tei and foi directly contradict the cmavo list. If that is intentional, please say so in BIG BRIGHT LETTERS.

Thanks.

I'll go see about getting the polls working.

-Robin



posts: 152
You should specify that shifts end at the end of a lerfu sequence. The sole usage of ga'e made this assumption.


bancus posts: 52
I agree with Robin. I'd like to see some examples of usage as well.


rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:40:58PM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
>
> Re:BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
>
> I agree with Robin. I'd like to see some examples of usage as well.

Please put a sign-off of some kind at the bottom of posts, too.
Thanks.

-Robin

 



arj posts: 953

> That goes to everyone in the BPFK: please assume that everything I say is prefaced with "Thank you for contributing! You're amazing!". Unless what I say is "Go stick your head in a pig", in which case, well, you know what to do.

Thanks. I appreciate your appreciation.

> Secondly, your definitions of tei and foi directly contradict the cmavo list. If that is intentional, please say so in BIG BRIGHT LETTERS.

I disagree. My new definitions are intepretations of both the cmavo list and the Codex Woldy.

If you still believe that they are contradictory, please be more specific, and I'll se what I can do.



bancus posts: 52

It would seem that the definitions of tei and foi are transposed with respect to the LLG. I reference example 6.1 of chapter 17:

6.1) tei .ebu .akut. bu foi ty. tei .akut. bu .ebu foi ( e acute ) t ( acute e )

 
In addition, the ma'oste defines them as follows:

foi FOI end composite lerfu terminator: end composite lerfu; never elidable tei TEI composite lerfu composite letteral follows; used for muti-character letterals

 
This may be what Robin is referring to.

-- Ted



posts: 1912

> rab.spir:
> You should specify that shifts end at the end of a lerfu sequence. The sole usage of ga'e made this assumption.

I think the sole usage of ga'e assumes it doesn't end at the end of the lerfu sequence. Otherwise all the following A's and B's would become a's and b's. I think {nau} in that text is supposed to be {na'a}. Probably that's what {nau} was at the time this text was written, I know that the current meaning of {nau} is a late addition.

A text with interspersed A's and a's would show better how unworkable these shifts are.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



admin posts: 208

> In addition, the ma'oste defines them as follows:
>

>
foi FOI end composite lerfu terminator: end composite lerfu; never elidable > tei TEI composite lerfu composite letteral follows; used for muti-character letterals

>
> This may be what Robin is referring to.

Quite. The current proposal says the opposite. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

-Robin



posts: 1912

 
> ;boi: Terminates a letteral sequence or a numeral.

It may be useful to point out that it is usually elidable, and that
it cannot be elided when two lerfu pronouns occur next to each other,
when a lerfu pronoun is quantified, and when a lerfu pronoun is
followed by a number tense. It is easy to forget it in those cases.

> ;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 the aforementioned previous word is
> already a letteral, the resulting letteral will not necessarily be the same.

Is {zo a bu} a letteral or a quote?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

 



posts: 23

Arnt has a good thing going here. But (in no particular order):

1. In the section on how "bu" combines (or not), it's missing that it doesn't combine with "bu". In fact, the parser spits out "ky bu bu" as an error. But The Book says (page 416): 'It is also illegal to attach "bu" to itself, but more than one "bu" may attach to a word". This is a disagreement that needs to be addressed.

2. The page needs proofreading (e.g.: "more then" should be "more than"). If this is to be the "official" definition it better be right. Just think of the arguments we've already had over changing even one word of the baseline.

3. For "lau" and "tau", "the following lerfu" needs to be defined better. For example, "lau ky bu" is (per the parser) "lau (ky bu)" and not "(lau ky) bu". Examples would help here.

4. Some keywords missing ("tei" and "foi").

And, I don't like the phrasing about leaving things out of advanced learning material. It isn't that I necessarily want them included in a textbook (even advanced), but the wording implies that they should also be left out of the dictionary; that I definitely don't like. By the way, I happen to think "zai" is fine, although uses have not yet arisen much. It addresses a potential future hole. How about "What are the 1st 6 notes of Are You Sleeping?": zai zgike bu cy dy ebu cy dy ebu.

Sorry if this comment was not done correctly. The mechanics of commenting are a mystery to me.



posts: 381

In a message dated 2004-02-19 5:21:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:

> In fact, the parser spits out "ky bu bu" as an error.

"ky bu bu" is a boo-boo?
stevo

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:18:29PM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
wrote:
>
> Arnt has a good thing going here. But (in no particular order):

Eep. Bit late, isn't it?

> 1. In the section on how "bu" combines (or not), it's missing that
> it doesn't combine with "bu". In fact, the parser spits out "ky
> bu bu" as an error. But The Book says (page 416): 'It is also
> illegal to attach "bu" to itself, but more than one "bu" may
> attach to a word". This is a disagreement that needs to be
> addressed.

I would be willing to bet that that's supposed to be "but *no* more
than". Otherwise it would be rather strange English (as written,
that should be an 'and' and not a 'but').

Note that the parser *does* accept 'bu bu'.

-Robin

--
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies." — Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > 1. In the section on how "bu" combines (or not), it's missing that
> > it doesn't combine with "bu". In fact, the parser spits out "ky
> > bu bu" as an error. But The Book says (page 416): 'It is also
> > illegal to attach "bu" to itself, but more than one "bu" may
> > attach to a word". This is a disagreement that needs to be
> > addressed.
>
> I would be willing to bet that that's supposed to be "but *no* more
> than". Otherwise it would be rather strange English (as written,
> that should be an 'and' and not a 'but').

No, I meant what I wrote: it means that while "bu bu" can happen in Lojban,
this is not an instance of "bu" applying to "bu", but rather of "bu" applying
to "X bu" where X is the preceding word.

> Note that the parser *does* accept 'bu bu'.

The official parser is definitely buggy here.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
"You cannot enter here. Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back!
Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!" --Gandalf

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 03:44:23PM -0500, jcowan@reutershealth.com
wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> No, I meant what I wrote: it means that while "bu bu" can happen in
> Lojban, this is not an instance of "bu" applying to "bu", but rather
> of "bu" applying to "X bu" where X is the preceding word.
>
> > Note that the parser *does* accept 'bu bu'.
>
> The official parser is definitely buggy here.

On both counts: it doesn't accept 'ky bu bu' or 'broda bu bu' either.

-Robin

 



arj posts: 953

> noras:

> And, I don't like the phrasing about leaving things out of advanced learning material. It isn't that I necessarily want them included in a textbook (even advanced), but the wording implies that they should also be left out of the dictionary; that I definitely don't like. By the way, I happen to think "zai" is fine, although uses have not yet arisen much. It addresses a potential future hole. How about "What are the 1st 6 notes of Are You Sleeping?": zai zgike bu cy dy ebu cy dy ebu.

I agree. I hate it. But there seems to be consensus that it seems to be so advanced that it should not be taught. I am avoiding the suggested term "deprecation", because that term is usually used in standards documents for things that are on the way towards being obsoleted. I definitely do not want that for a document that is supposed to be the final normative word, ever, on Lojban.



arj posts: 953

> noras:
> 1. In the section on how "bu" combines (or not), it's missing that it doesn't combine with "bu". In fact, the parser spits out "ky bu bu" as an error. But The Book says (page 416): 'It is also illegal to attach "bu" to itself, but more than one "bu" may attach to a word". This is a disagreement that needs to be addressed.

I am going with The Book; the definition now reflects that.

I am also assuming that this an actual bug in the parser itself, and not in the YACC grammar. This means that it does not constitute a change to the baseline.

> 2. The page needs proofreading (e.g.: "more then" should be "more than"). If this is to be the "official" definition it better be right. Just think of the arguments we've already had over changing even one word of the baseline.

I have changed the error you mentioned. If people think this is important, it probably should be proofread by a native speaker of English.

> 3. For "lau" and "tau", "the following lerfu" needs to be defined better. For example, "lau ky bu" is (per the parser) "lau (ky bu)" and not "(lau ky) bu". Examples would help here.

I am assuming (for the lack of protests by John, and that I don't have The Book handy) that the parser is right. I have inserted notes to that effect.

> 4. Some keywords missing ("tei" and "foi").

That was because I found them too difficult at the moment. I have now regained my creativity, and have added them.



rlpowell posts: 14214

> arj:
> > noras:
>
> > And, I don't like the phrasing about leaving things out of advanced learning material. It isn't that I necessarily want them included in a textbook (even advanced), but the wording implies that they should also be left out of the dictionary; that I definitely don't like. By the way, I happen to think "zai" is fine, although uses have not yet arisen much. It addresses a potential future hole. How about "What are the 1st 6 notes of Are You Sleeping?": zai zgike bu cy dy ebu cy dy ebu.
>
> I agree. I hate it. But there seems to be consensus that it seems to be so advanced that it should not be taught. I am avoiding the suggested term "deprecation", because that term is usually used in standards documents for things that are on the way towards being obsoleted. I definitely do not want that for a document that is supposed to be the final normative word, ever, on Lojban.

If we're not going to free up the cmavo space, I'd be fine with " except in the most advanced materials".

I'd prefer to free up the cmavo, but it's clear that there's not enough support for that. No big deal.

-Robin



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 11:55:32AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
>
> Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
>
> > 2. The page needs proofreading (e.g.: "more then" should be "more
> > than"). If this is to be the "official" definition it better be
> > right. Just think of the arguments we've already had over changing
> > even one word of the baseline.
>
> I have changed the error you mentioned. If people think this is
> important, it probably should be proofread by a native speaker of
> English.

I actually *did* proof-read it, but I have a known blind spot with
"then" versus "than". 8)

-Robin

 



posts: 23

Well, the page has been improved. The new tei...foi keywords are nicely complementary. Although I have some misgivings about this (see below), I will not stand in the way of acceptance, so I'll change my vote to "yes".

I think this page, and probably many others, may have to change - expand, really - as a result of interactions with other cmavo (especially the other lerfu cmavo) in order to clarify interactions. However, we do need a basis on which to start looking at those interactions. For example, the parser says "lau ce'a a bu" is "({ BOI} VAU)". Also, the book says (page 415) "If a shift to upper-case is in effect when "tau" appears, it shifts the next lerfu word only to lower case, reversing its usual effect."



rlpowell posts: 14214

> noras:
>
> I think this page, and probably many others, may have to change - expand, really - as a result of interactions with other cmavo (especially the other lerfu cmavo) in order to clarify interactions.

Boy, I certainly hope so.

> However, we do need a basis on which to start looking at those interactions. For example, the parser says "lau ce'a a bu" is "({ BOI} VAU)".

As there is neither a BOI nor a VAU in that string, I'd say the parser is confused.

> Also, the book says (page 415) "If a shift to upper-case is in effect when "tau" appears, it shifts the next lerfu word only to lower case, reversing its usual effect."

Ah. That's something that needs to be taken into account, then. Arnt?

-Robin



arj posts: 953

> noras:
> Also, the book says (page 415) "If a shift to upper-case is in effect when "tau" appears, it shifts the next lerfu word only to lower case, reversing its usual effect."

This is now taken into account.



posts: 162

Lessee if I can reply by email

At 12:06 PM 3/5/04 -0800, you wrote:
>Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
>Posted by: rlpowell
>
> > noras:
> >
> > I think this page, and probably many others, may have to change -
> expand, really - as a result of interactions with other cmavo (especially
> the other lerfu cmavo) in order to clarify interactions.
>
>Boy, I certainly hope so.

Then I don't understand the "checkpoints". Why are we voting now, if we
know they are incomplete and we are going to be coming back and changing
them? My checkpoint votes are based on the assumption that this is
supposed to be more or less final, and only if a later change *requires*
revisiting these, would we be doing so. That is far different from
acknowledging that the thing is incomplete and needs to be expanded merely
to understand interactions with other cmavo.

As Nora noted to me, the level of review that seems to be taking place is
much less rigorous than we would have expected the byfy to be
undertaking. She thinks it is OK to proceed, if it is understood that we
will be doing another go-round; if this is the case, I think the chair
needs to make it more clear in the procedures what precisely a checkpoint
approval means now, and how open things will be to changes down the
pike. My threat of blanket vetoes that prompted Nick's quitting was
precisely because I was afraid that half-vetted work would be approved, and
that we would be stuck with it.

(Now perhaps it is just that no one cares that much about the lerfu shifts
that they were treated this lightly.)

> > However, we do need a basis on which to start looking at those
> interactions. For example, the parser says "lau ce'a a bu" is "({ BOI}
> VAU)".
>
>As there is neither a BOI nor a VAU in that string, I'd say the parser is
>confused.

I think she meant that the parser is grouping it, inserting the elided
terminators:
<[(lau ) BOI] VAU>

I'll try to spend some serious review time this weekend, so I can prepare
my own lucid comments. Sorry for being silent so long.

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 07:30:50PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> At 12:06 PM 3/5/04 -0800, you wrote:
> >Posted by: rlpowell
> >
> > > noras:
> > >
> > > I think this page, and probably many others, may have to change -
> > expand, really - as a result of interactions with other cmavo
> > (especially the other lerfu cmavo) in order to clarify interactions.
> >
> >Boy, I certainly hope so.

That was, perhaps, overstated in terms of enthusiasm. I meant something
more like, "Boy, if any complicated interactions with other cmavo become
apparent down the line, I sure hope someone will notice them so we can
re-open these sections and update them.".

> Then I don't understand the "checkpoints". Why are we voting now, if
> we know they are incomplete and we are going to be coming back and
> changing them? My checkpoint votes are based on the assumption that
> this is supposed to be more or less final, and only if a later change
> *requires* revisiting these, would we be doing so. That is far
> different from acknowledging that the thing is incomplete and needs to
> be expanded merely to understand interactions with other cmavo.

There is no inherent contradiction between 'more or less final' and
'needs to be expanded merely to understand interactions with other
cmavo'. See my re-statement above.

> As Nora noted to me, the level of review that seems to be taking place
> is much less rigorous than we would have expected the byfy to be
> undertaking.

Then she should be undertaking the level of review that she thinks
appropriate.

I stated from the outset that I am taking the BPFK jatna job in an
administrative capacity; it is up to the other BPFK members to do the
actual work.

There are 30 of them, FFS. It shouldn't be hard.

Please note that of the 30 or so BPFK 'members', *eight* people have
voted in this checkpoint. Of those, two have only voted for one section
of the three.

If you want more rigorous review, light a fire under the other 20+
members; I've tried my best.

> She thinks it is OK to proceed, if it is understood that we will be
> doing another go-round; if this is the case, I think the chair needs
> to make it more clear in the procedures what precisely a checkpoint
> approval means now, and how open things will be to changes down the
> pike.

Read http://lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Procedures

I write this stuff for a reason.

Thanks.

In particular:

- When that is done, the pages get moved to an archive for the given
checkpoint, and all the passed proposals are considered to define
Baseline LLG Lojban. Note that all proposals in checkpoint sections
must pass for a checkpoint to be complete.

- Progress to the next checkpoint then begins. Lather, rinse, repeat.

- Please note that a particular section can be opened more than once. In
particular, a future checkpoint can re-open a section if a problem
with the previously approved proposal is discovered.

> (Now perhaps it is just that no one cares that much about the lerfu
> shifts that they were treated this lightly.)

I'm certain that has a lot to do with it.

> I'll try to spend some serious review time this weekend, so I can prepare
> my own lucid comments. Sorry for being silent so long.

Don't worry too much; you're not the only one. If I wasn't so desperate
to prove that The BPFK Is Capable Of Doing Something, and that it doing
so Is Not The End Of Lojban As We Know It, I wouldn't be being so damned
antsy.

-Robin

--
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies." — Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui

 



posts: 1912
lau Converts the following letteral to punctuation. The following letteral may be a single letteral word, or a letteral combined with bu.

 
I don't know whether this is worth pointing out or not, but since you mention that the following letteral can be a word-bu, you might as well mention that it can also be a tei-foi string.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



arj posts: 953

> xorxes:

>
lau > Converts the following letteral to punctuation. The following letteral may be a single letteral word, or a letteral combined with bu.

>
> I don't know whether this is worth pointing out or not, but since you mention that the following letteral can be a word-bu, you might as well mention that it can also be a tei-foi string.

I don't believe that the current machine grammar takes this into account.

I could add a note on tei-foi to the definition, though. That would constitute an additive change. Any opinions on this?

-arj



posts: 1912

 
arj:
> > xorxes:

> >
lau

> > Converts the following letteral to punctuation. The following letteral may

> be a single letteral word, or a letteral combined with bu.

> >
> > I don't know whether this is worth pointing out or not, but since you
> mention that the following letteral can be a word-bu, you might as well
> mention that it can also be a tei-foi string.
>
> I don't believe that the current machine grammar takes this into account.

But it does:

lerfu_word_987 : BY_513
| LAU_559 lerfu_word_987
| TEI_605 lerfu_string_root_986 FOI_533

 
LAU takes a lerfu word. A lerfu word can be a BY (which includes
word-bu) but it can also be a tei-foi string. It could also be another
lau-modified lerfu word, so we could have {lau lau by}, whatever it may
mean.

> I could add a note on tei-foi to the definition, though. That would
> constitute an additive change. Any opinions on this?

It's not a change in the grammar.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

 



arj posts: 953

> xorxes:
>
> arj:
> > > xorxes:

> > >
lau

> > > Converts the following letteral to punctuation. The following letteral may

> > be a single letteral word, or a letteral combined with bu.

> > >
> > > I don't know whether this is worth pointing out or not, but since you
> > mention that the following letteral can be a word-bu, you might as well
> > mention that it can also be a tei-foi string.
> >
> > I don't believe that the current machine grammar takes this into account.
>
> But it does:
>
> lerfu_word_987 : BY_513
> | LAU_559 lerfu_word_987
> | TEI_605 lerfu_string_root_986 FOI_533
>
>
> LAU takes a lerfu word. A lerfu word can be a BY (which includes
> word-bu) but it can also be a tei-foi string. It could also be another
> lau-modified lerfu word, so we could have {lau lau by}, whatever it may
> mean.

Thanks for pointing this out to me. tei and foi is inserted throughout; lau will follow immediately.



rlpowell posts: 14214

> Anonymous:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > > 1. In the section on how "bu" combines (or not), it's missing that
> > > it doesn't combine with "bu". In fact, the parser spits out "ky
> > > bu bu" as an error. But The Book says (page 416): 'It is also
> > > illegal to attach "bu" to itself, but more than one "bu" may
> > > attach to a word". This is a disagreement that needs to be
> > > addressed.
> >
> > I would be willing to bet that that's supposed to be "but *no* more
> > than". Otherwise it would be rather strange English (as written,
> > that should be an 'and' and not a 'but').
>
> No, I meant what I wrote: it means that while "bu bu" can happen in Lojban,
> this is not an instance of "bu" applying to "bu", but rather of "bu" applying
> to "X bu" where X is the preceding word.

Is this supposed to be recursive? IOW, is "mi do bu bu" supposed to work out as "(mi (do bu) bu)"?

-Robin



posts: 1912

 
> Is this supposed to be recursive? IOW, is "mi do bu bu" supposed to work out
> as "(mi (do bu) bu)"?
>
> -Robin

It's "mi ((do bu) bu)".

mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

> rlpowell:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 03:44:23PM -0500, jcowan@reutershealth.com
> wrote:
> > Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> >
> > No, I meant what I wrote: it means that while "bu bu" can happen in
> > Lojban, this is not an instance of "bu" applying to "bu", but rather
> > of "bu" applying to "X bu" where X is the preceding word.
> >
> > > Note that the parser *does* accept 'bu bu'.
> >
> > The official parser is definitely buggy here.
>
> On both counts: it doesn't accept 'ky bu bu' or 'broda bu bu' either.

There's a very good reason this doesn't work: the grammar says it shouldn't.

The pre-processing says:

c. Absorb all selma'o BU tokens into the previous token. Relabel the previous token as selma'o BY.

The only other place that BU occurs in grammar.300 is commented out, because it's intended to represent the above rule.

Let me say that again: according to grammar.300, "ky bu bu" is *supposed* to fail. That means we're about to approve a change to the grammar. This is fine by me, because it won't invalidate previous usage and was obviously the intention, but it's my duty as jatna to point this out.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:14:59AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > Is this supposed to be recursive? IOW, is "mi do bu bu" supposed to
> > work out as "(mi (do bu) bu)"?
> >
> > -Robin
>
> It's "mi ((do bu) bu)".

Except that according to grammar.300, it's "mi (do bu) *failure*". See
my other post.

To be more clear: bu is handled by preprocessing, which only eats one
word+bu token. bu appearing after preprocessing is an error.

-Robin

--
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies." — Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:14:59AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > It's "mi ((do bu) bu)".
>
> Except that according to grammar.300, it's "mi (do bu) *failure*". See
> my other post.

Let's see:

> c. Absorb all selma'o BU tokens into the previous token. Relabel the
> previous token as selma'o BY.

The parser gets to the first bu.
It absorbs the previous token (KOhA) and relabels it as BY.
The parser gets to the second bu.
It absorbs the previous token (BY) and relabels it as BY.

What's the problem?

mi'e xorxes

 
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:28:00AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:14:59AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > >
> > > It's "mi ((do bu) bu)".
> >
> > Except that according to grammar.300, it's "mi (do bu) *failure*".
> > See my other post.
>
> Let's see:
>
> > c. Absorb all selma'o BU tokens into the previous token. Relabel
> > the previous token as selma'o BY.
>
> The parser gets to the first bu.
> It absorbs the previous token (KOhA) and relabels it as BY.
> The parser gets to the second bu.
> It absorbs the previous token (BY) and relabels it as BY.
>
> What's the problem?

The section heading:

In a new pass, perform the following absorptions (absorption means
that the token is removed from the grammar for processing in
following steps, and optionally reinserted, grouped with the
absorbing token after parsing is completed).

I'm assuming there that 'grammar' is intended to say 'text'.

As described, the BY absorbtion is only re-inserted *after* parsing (by
which I assume that it means "the current step of parsing", not "parsing
as a whole", but who the hell knows?).

-Robin

--
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies." — Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:28:00AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > What's the problem?
>
> The section heading:
>
> In a new pass, perform the following absorptions (absorption means
> that the token is removed from the grammar for processing in
> following steps, and optionally reinserted, grouped with the
> absorbing token after parsing is completed).
>
> I'm assuming there that 'grammar' is intended to say 'text'.

That would make more sense.

> As described, the BY absorbtion is only re-inserted *after* parsing (by
> which I assume that it means "the current step of parsing", not "parsing
> as a whole", but who the hell knows?).

AS I understand it, the token that is absorbed (and thus removed) is
the BU token, not the one that gets relabeled. The reinsertion occurs
after all parsing is done, for the benefit of the human.

mi'e xorxes

 
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:51:05AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:28:00AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the problem?
> >
> > The section heading:
> >
> > In a new pass, perform the following absorptions (absorption means
> > that the token is removed from the grammar for processing in
> > following steps, and optionally reinserted, grouped with the
> > absorbing token after parsing is completed).
> >
> > As described, the BY absorbtion is only re-inserted *after* parsing
> > (by which I assume that it means "the current step of parsing", not
> > "parsing as a whole", but who the hell knows?).
>
> AS I understand it, the token that is absorbed (and thus removed) is
> the BU token, not the one that gets relabeled.

That seems unlikely, as the text above refers to the 'absorbing token'
as well as the token that is absorbed. In 'mi bu', it seems very
strange to refer to 'mi' as the 'absorbing token'.

> The reinsertion occurs after all parsing is done, for the benefit of
> the human.

In which case, there definately isn't going to be anything there for a
second 'bu' to attach to.

-Robin

 



wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:

> Is this supposed to be recursive? IOW, is "mi do bu bu" supposed to wo=
rk out as "(mi (do bu) bu)"?

No, it's "mi ((do bu) bu)".

--=20
H=EDggledy-p=ECggledy / XML programmers John Cowan
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; http://www.ccil.org/~cowa=
n
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is http://www.reutershealth.=
com
Unicode weenies and / Fran=E7ois Yergeaus. jcowan@reutershealth.co=
m

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> To be more clear: bu is handled by preprocessing, which only eats one
> word+bu token.

Where is this written? It says "all BU tokens", which means AFAICT
"cook until done".

> bu appearing after preprocessing is an error.

Indeed. Furthermore, it's an impossibility.

--
Unless it was by accident that I had John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized. jcowan@reutershealth.com
--Quentin Crisp http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:10:20PM -0500, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > To be more clear: bu is handled by preprocessing, which only eats
> > one word+bu token.
>
> Where is this written? It says "all BU tokens", which means AFAICT
> "cook until done".

The text in question can be read many, many ways.

> > bu appearing after preprocessing is an error.
>
> Indeed. Furthermore, it's an impossibility.

Apparently not, since all "bu bu" phrases tested so far choke the
official parser. Furthermore, this (informal) grammar rule for how BU
works only handles one word, which lends credence to my interpretation.

token_1100 : any_word_698
snip
| any_word_698 BU_511
snip

-Robin

--
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies." — Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:51:05AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > In a new pass, perform the following absorptions (absorption means
> > > that the token is removed from the grammar for processing in
> > > following steps, and optionally reinserted, grouped with the
> > > absorbing token after parsing is completed).
> >
> > AS I understand it, the token that is absorbed (and thus removed) is
> > the BU token, not the one that gets relabeled.
>
> That seems unlikely, as the text above refers to the 'absorbing token'
> as well as the token that is absorbed. In 'mi bu', it seems very
> strange to refer to 'mi' as the 'absorbing token'.

The absorbing token is the one left behind, labeld as BY. It doesn't
matter whether you think of it as {mi} or as {bu}, in fact it
really is {mibu}. In any case, the absorbing token left behind is
available to interact with the next bu. The paragraph may not be
very clear, but the meaning you propose does not make sense, what
would be the point of removing the newly created BY token?

> > The reinsertion occurs after all parsing is done, for the benefit of
> > the human.
>
> In which case, there definately isn't going to be anything there for a
> second 'bu' to attach to.

The "reinsertion" is the reconversion of the virtual BY into {mi bu}.

The preparser changes {mi bu bu} into BY.
Then, after all parsing is done, the first reinsertion changes BY
into BY bu, and a second reinsertion changes BY bu into mi bu bu.
The reinsertions are said to be optional because they don't affect
the parsing.

mi'e xorxes

 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:51:25PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 11:51:05AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > In a new pass, perform the following absorptions (absorption
> > > > means that the token is removed from the grammar for
> > > > processing in following steps, and optionally reinserted,
> > > > grouped with the absorbing token after parsing is
> > > > completed).
> > >
> > > AS I understand it, the token that is absorbed (and thus removed)
> > > is the BU token, not the one that gets relabeled.
> >
> > That seems unlikely, as the text above refers to the 'absorbing
> > token' as well as the token that is absorbed. In 'mi bu', it seems
> > very strange to refer to 'mi' as the 'absorbing token'.
>
> The absorbing token is the one left behind, labeld as BY.

You must be reading a very different paragraph than the one I'm reading.

"the token is removed ... and optionally re-inserted, *grouped* *with*

  • the* *absorbing* *token*"

 
That implies to me that there are two tokens, the absorbed and the
absorbing, that they are treated seperately, and that neither of them is
the new virtual token, because you wouldn't group that with anything if
you are re-inserting things for human readability.

> It doesn't matter whether you think of it as {mi} or as {bu}, in fact
> it really is {mibu}. In any case, the absorbing token left behind is
> available to interact with the next bu. The paragraph may not be very
> clear, but the meaning you propose does not make sense, what would be
> the point of removing the newly created BY token?

I have no idea, but I'm trying to reconcile that parapgraph with both
the informal grammar production given for BU and the actual behaviour of
the official parser.

> > > The reinsertion occurs after all parsing is done, for the benefit
> > > of the human.
> >
> > In which case, there definately isn't going to be anything there for
> > a second 'bu' to attach to.
>
> The "reinsertion" is the reconversion of the virtual BY into {mi bu}.
>
> The preparser changes {mi bu bu} into BY.

Apparently not.

> Then, after all parsing is done, the first reinsertion changes BY into
> BY bu, and a second reinsertion changes BY bu into mi bu bu. The
> reinsertions are said to be optional because they don't affect the
> parsing.

That makes perfect sense, but it isn't true in practice and I'm not sure
it's what the grammar calls for.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> > > > > In a new pass, perform the following absorptions (absorption
> > > > > means that the token is removed from the grammar for
> > > > > processing in following steps, and optionally reinserted,
> > > > > grouped with the absorbing token after parsing is
> > > > > completed).
>
> You must be reading a very different paragraph than the one I'm reading.
>
> "the token is removed ... and optionally re-inserted, *grouped* *with*
> *the* *absorbing* *token*"

Ok, there are three tokens: the absorbed (BU), the absorbing (KOhA)
and the token resulting from the absorption (BY). One of BU or KOhA
is said to be "relabeled" as BY, and the other is said to be "removed".
It makes no difference, it's all metaphoric anyway. Whichever is left
behind relabeled as BY is available to interact with a new BU, the
other one is removed (and remembered for post-parsing reinsertion).

> > The preparser changes {mi bu bu} into BY.
>
> Apparently not.

I meant to say it should do that according to the rules. I know that
the implementation has some bugs.

> > Then, after all parsing is done, the first reinsertion changes BY into
> > BY bu, and a second reinsertion changes BY bu into mi bu bu. The
> > reinsertions are said to be optional because they don't affect the
> > parsing.
>
> That makes perfect sense, but it isn't true in practice and I'm not sure
> it's what the grammar calls for.

Let's vote on it, then. :-)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> That seems unlikely, as the text above refers to the 'absorbing token'
> as well as the token that is absorbed. In 'mi bu', it seems very
> strange to refer to 'mi' as the 'absorbing token'.

No, "mi" absorbs "bu" and is translated into a novel token of selma'o BY.
Internally, the objects that are used as tokens can have child tokens attached;
in this case, the original "mi" and "bu" appear there.

This same mechanism is used for backtracking with the 700's rules: if the
lexrule?.c module fails, the child tokens are pushed back on the input and
the parent tokens are recycled.

--
The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan
free-range chickens (except they have http://www.reutershealth.com
teeth, arms instead of wings and http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
dinosaurlike tails). --Elyse Grasso

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 01:12:17PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > Then, after all parsing is done, the first reinsertion changes BY
> > > into BY bu, and a second reinsertion changes BY bu into mi bu bu.
> > > The reinsertions are said to be optional because they don't affect
> > > the parsing.
> >
> > That makes perfect sense, but it isn't true in practice and I'm not
> > sure it's what the grammar calls for.
>
> Let's vote on it, then. :-)

Heh heh. Touche.

(We already have voted on it, and xorxes interpretation won, unless a
bunch of people are about to change their votes.)

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

This is more of a clarification, but it's not very clear how long the shifts last. This'll need to be cleaned up in the mega-vote, if this section doesn't otherwise get opened before that.

-Robin



posts: 2388

Either every shift is for one character only, which is going to make acronyms, for example, very wordy, or it runs until an explicit downshift or the end of the character string, which ever comes first. The latter is obviously better, both shorter and clearer.

wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
This is more of a clarification, but it's not very clear how long the shifts last. This'll need to be cleaned up in the mega-vote, if this section doesn't otherwise get opened before that.

-Robin

 





posts: 1912

pc:
> Either every shift is for one character only, which is going to make
> acronyms, for example, very wordy, or it runs until an explicit downshift or
> the end of the character string, which ever comes first. The latter is
> obviously better, both shorter and clearer.

The only significant example of use (a mathematical piece by
Nick) actually has the shift running beyond the end of the
character string, for all following character strings until
an explicit {na'a} is used.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

That seems excessive to me. Each string should begin with a shifter (or else the wholee should have a global marker at the beginning — assuming no mixture of shifted and not) How to do a global shift is not clear but surely must be available to do running text in another alphabet. Of course, the whole shift system seems to me horribly misguided and a great waste of useful space that might better be solved by nonce forms and explanations (which should, I suppose, be global).

Jorge Llambías wrote: pc:
> Either every shift is for one character only, which is going to make
> acronyms, for example, very wordy, or it runs until an explicit downshift or
> the end of the character string, which ever comes first. The latter is
> obviously better, both shorter and clearer.

The only significant example of use (a mathematical piece by
Nick) actually has the shift running beyond the end of the
character string, for all following character strings until
an explicit {na'a} is used.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 





posts: 1912

 
pc:
> How to do a global shift is not clear but surely
> must be available to do running text in another alphabet.

What kind of running text? If the text is in another language,
then it has to be quoted with {zoi}, and it can use any alphabet.
No lerfu shifts involved. If it is lojban text written in an
alternative alphabet, then it is simply written in that alphabet,
no lerfu shifts will be involved either. {mi klama le zarci} written
using the Greek alphabet will be written with Greek letters, but
the cmavo {ge'o} will not appear anywhere, nor for that matter
the cmavo {my}, {i}, {bu}, {ky}, {ly}, etc.

> Of course, the
> whole shift system seems to me horribly misguided and a great waste of useful
> space that might better be solved by nonce forms and explanations (which
> should, I suppose, be global).

Certainly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

This is why the whole shift structure is so nearly useless: there is practically no occasion to use it. As you note, it is never needed in written text. In spoken text, it is needed for 1) acronymic names (including Greek-letter organizations), 2) reading written texts (mostly mathematical) where alphabetic variations are significant (upper case or other script — alphabet or even type face), 3) proofreading (with essentially the same range as 2 but covering a wider variety of alternate alphabets — even Elves need proofreaders). The first is already covered by the freedom of naming (and is it really essential that "CIA" or "phi beta kappa" is capitalized?). The others can be covered by a global rule which specifies the character sets (many systems use wingdings or dingbats or whatever as well as letters) involved and specifies the flags for them (against a standard correlation table, I suppose). And even with these, names are available in most cases to be used (and they tend to
come more naturally anyhow), leaving at most type faces that really need some help.

Jorge Llambías wrote:
pc:
> How to do a global shift is not clear but surely
> must be available to do running text in another alphabet.

What kind of running text? If the text is in another language,
then it has to be quoted with {zoi}, and it can use any alphabet.
No lerfu shifts involved. If it is lojban text written in an
alternative alphabet, then it is simply written in that alphabet,
no lerfu shifts will be involved either. {mi klama le zarci} written
using the Greek alphabet will be written with Greek letters, but
the cmavo {ge'o} will not appear anywhere, nor for that matter
the cmavo {my}, {i}, {bu}, {ky}, {ly}, etc.

> Of course, the
> whole shift system seems to me horribly misguided and a great waste of useful
> space that might better be solved by nonce forms and explanations (which
> should, I suppose, be global).

Certainly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:04:28AM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> This is why the whole shift structure is so nearly useless: there is
> practically no occasion to use it.

It comes up litterally hudreds of times in ctununta'a.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

bu should explicitely state that it can't operate on bu (i.e. that "bu bu" by itself is illegal), although a string of "bu" are allowed.

-Robin



rlpowell posts: 14214

About BAhE + BU.

Your definition states that BU can't turn BAhE into a lerfu. Was it your intention that BAhE could act on BU as normal, so that "broda ba'e bu" would be equal to "broda bu" except for emphasis?

-Robin



arj posts: 953

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:

> Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
> bu should explicitely state that it can't operate on bu (i.e. that "b=
u bu" by itself is illegal), although a string of "bu" are allowed.

This follows from the fact that "bu" by itself is illegal.

--=20
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org=
/
Hvis jeg *vil* skrive til *den* plassen i minnet, s=E5 *skal* jeg skriv=
e
til *den* plassen i minnet. Det er derfor jeg foretrekker assembler.
— Ingulf Helland

 



arj posts: 953

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:

> BAhE + BU
> About BAhE + BU.
>
> Your definition states that BU can't turn BAhE into a lerfu. Was it your intention that BAhE could act on BU as normal, so that "broda ba'e bu" would be equal to "broda bu" except for emphasis?

I don't remember exactly, but my intention was probably just to make it as
similar to CLL C19 S16 as possible.

But now that I have read Jorge's earlier posting, I agree that it is more
useful to emphasize the word bu than be able to talk about an
emphasis-character.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
The names of a species, empire, language, homeworld, homestar and so
on will all be self-evidently related; Ogrons come from Ogros,
Arisians come from Arisia, Arcturans come from Arcturus, and Humans no
doubt come from Humus. --Justin B. Rye in A Primer In SF Xenolinguistics

 



On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:52, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
> bu should explicitely state that it can't operate on bu (i.e. that "bu bu"
> by itself is illegal), although a string of "bu" are allowed.

Such a mistake is called a booboo ;)

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 12:38:18PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
>
> > Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
> > bu should explicitely state that it can't operate on bu (i.e.
> > that "bu bu" by itself is illegal), although a string of "bu"
> > are allowed.
>
> This follows from the fact that "bu" by itself is illegal.

Ah, OK.

-Robin

 



wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> BAhE + BU
> About BAhE + BU.
>
> Your definition states that BU can't turn BAhE into a lerfu. Was it your intention that BAhE could act on BU as normal, so that "broda ba'e bu" would be equal to "broda bu" except for emphasis?

No, that wasn't my intention. What is written in the Red Book reflects
the order in which the official parser does things.

I don't think "broda ba'e bu" makes much sense under either interpretation.

--
On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
you're not a dog. --Bill de hOra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:00:17PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> > BAhE + BU About BAhE + BU.
> >
> > Your definition states that BU can't turn BAhE into a lerfu.
> > Was it your intention that BAhE could act on BU as normal, so
> > that "broda ba'e bu" would be equal to "broda bu" except for
> > emphasis?
>
> No, that wasn't my intention.

I was asking Arnt about *his* definition, in the BPFK section in
question. Just FYI; I certainly don't mind hearing from you.

> What is written in the Red Book reflects the order in which the
> official parser does things.
>
> I don't think "broda ba'e bu" makes much sense under either
> interpretation.

Agreed, although as xorxes points out emphasis can be used to
correct a mistake.

-Robin

 



clsn posts: 84

Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:

> But now that I have read Jorge's earlier posting, I agree that it is
> more useful to emphasize the word bu than be able to talk about an
> emphasis-character.

.... which could just as well be called {basna bu}.

~mark

 



posts: 1912

 

In addition to single words, bu can be combined with a letteral that is already a composite of a word+bu.

 
This should be copmpleted to something like:

In addition to single words, bu can be combined with a letteral that is already a composite of a word+bu, a zei-lujvo, a zo-quoted word, a lo'u-quoted string of words or a zoi-quoted foreign text.

mi'e xorxes

 



posts: 2388

That seems excessive to me. Each string should begin with a shifter (or else the wholee should have a global marker at the beginning — assuming no mixture of shifted and not) How to do a global shift is not clear but surely must be available to do running text in another alphabet. Of course, the whole shift system seems to me horribly misguided and a great waste of useful space that might better be solved by nonce forms and explanations (which should, I suppose, be global).

Jorge Llambías wrote: pc:
> Either every shift is for one character only, which is going to make
> acronyms, for example, very wordy, or it runs until an explicit downshift or
> the end of the character string, which ever comes first. The latter is
> obviously better, both shorter and clearer.

The only significant example of use (a mathematical piece by
Nick) actually has the shift running beyond the end of the
character string, for all following character strings until
an explicit {na'a} is used.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 





posts: 2388

This is why the whole shift structure is so nearly useless: there is practically no occasion to use it. As you note, it is never needed in written text. In spoken text, it is needed for 1) acronymic names (including Greek-letter organizations), 2) reading written texts (mostly mathematical) where alphabetic variations are significant (upper case or other script — alphabet or even type face), 3) proofreading (with essentially the same range as 2 but covering a wider variety of alternate alphabets — even Elves need proofreaders). The first is already covered by the freedom of naming (and is it really essential that "CIA" or "phi beta kappa" is capitalized?). The others can be covered by a global rule which specifies the character sets (many systems use wingdings or dingbats or whatever as well as letters) involved and specifies the flags for them (against a standard correlation table, I suppose). And even with these, names are available in most cases to be used (and they tend to
come more naturally anyhow), leaving at most type faces that really need some help.

Jorge Llambías wrote:
pc:
> How to do a global shift is not clear but surely
> must be available to do running text in another alphabet.

What kind of running text? If the text is in another language,
then it has to be quoted with {zoi}, and it can use any alphabet.
No lerfu shifts involved. If it is lojban text written in an
alternative alphabet, then it is simply written in that alphabet,
no lerfu shifts will be involved either. {mi klama le zarci} written
using the Greek alphabet will be written with Greek letters, but
the cmavo {ge'o} will not appear anywhere, nor for that matter
the cmavo {my}, {i}, {bu}, {ky}, {ly}, etc.

> Of course, the
> whole shift system seems to me horribly misguided and a great waste of useful
> space that might better be solved by nonce forms and explanations (which
> should, I suppose, be global).

Certainly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 




Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo
bu should explicitely state that it can't operate on bu (i.e. that "bu bu" by itself is illegal), although a string of "bu" are allowed.

-Robin

 



Re: BPFK Section: lerfu Forming cmavo

In addition to single words, bu can be combined with a letteral that is already a composite of a word+bu.

 
This should be copmpleted to something like:

In addition to single words, bu can be combined with a letteral that is already a composite of a word+bu, a zei-lujvo, a zo-quoted word, a lo'u-quoted string of words or a zoi-quoted foreign text.

mi'e xorxes

 





BAhE + BU
About BAhE + BU.

Your definition states that BU can't turn BAhE into a lerfu. Was it your intention that BAhE could act on BU as normal, so that "broda ba'e bu" would be equal to "broda bu" except for emphasis?

-Robin

 


Show posts: