WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > BPFK Section: Quotations

BPFK Section: Quotations


rlpowell posts: 14214
Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Quotations page.


rlpowell posts: 14214

C19 S16 of the red book says:

"lo'u" quotes all following words up to a "le'u" (but not a "zo le'u").

Umm, *WTF*?

So {lo'u mi nelci zo le'u} is an error without another le'u? I thought the whole point of lo'u ... le'u was to quote arbitrary Lojban words without processing.

-Robin



rlpowell posts: 14214

While I'm at it, it also says:

"le'u" is ungrammatical except at the end of a "lo'u" quotation.

This seems to be obvious crap; anyone have a problem with my tacking "and after "zo"" on the end?

-Robin



rlpowell posts: 14214

Also in C16 S19, we have:

ZOI cmavo use the following word as a delimiting word, no matter
what it is, but using "le'u" may create difficulties.

Umm, what kind of problems? Are these problems a result of the parsing methodology, or of the definition of Lojban in the CLL?

-Robin



wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:

> C19 S16 of the red book says:
>
> "lo'u" quotes all following words up to a "le'u" (but not a "zo le'u").
>
> Umm, *WTF*?
>
> So {lo'u mi nelci zo le'u} is an error without another le'u? I thought the whole point of lo'u ... le'u was to quote arbitrary Lojban words without processing.

Yeah, except there was no way to get a le'u in. So you couldn't nest them.
Hacking zo specially lets you do that, sort of.

It's a kludge.

--
Where the wombat has walked, John Cowan
it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

 



wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> Re: Re: BPFK Section: Quotations
> While I'm at it, it also says:
>
> "le'u" is ungrammatical except at the end of a "lo'u" quotation.
>
> This seems to be obvious crap; anyone have a problem with my tacking "and after "zo"" on the end?

No problem. Any word will work after zo at present.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
— one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:53:08PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> > So {lo'u mi nelci zo le'u} is an error without another le'u? I
> > thought the whole point of lo'u ... le'u was to quote arbitrary
> > Lojban words without processing.
>
> Yeah, except there was no way to get a le'u in. So you couldn't
> nest them. Hacking zo specially lets you do that, sort of.

The horror of trying to talk about the mistake you made in a
previous lo'u ... le'u is just horrifying.

> It's a kludge.

I see that, but it makes sense. Thanks.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

 



wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> Re: BPFK Section: Quotations
> Also in C16 S19, we have:
>
> ZOI cmavo use the following word as a delimiting word, no matter
> what it is, but using "le'u" may create difficulties.

> Umm, what kind of problems? Are these problems a result of the parsing
> methodology, or of the definition of Lojban in the CLL?

If I say "zoi le'u the bogus example le'u", and you try to quote me with
"la djan cusku lo'u zoi le'u the bogus example le'u", your lo'u quote
terminates prematurely.

--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:57:43PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> > Re: BPFK Section: Quotations
> > Also in C16 S19, we have:
> >
> > ZOI cmavo use the following word as a delimiting word, no matter
> > what it is, but using "le'u" may create difficulties.
>
> > Umm, what kind of problems? Are these problems a result of the
> > parsing methodology, or of the definition of Lojban in the CLL?
>
> If I say "zoi le'u the bogus example le'u", and you try to quote
> me with "la djan cusku lo'u zoi le'u the bogus example le'u", your
> lo'u quote terminates prematurely.

OK, we need hand signs for Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, and the
Necronomicon to cover this shit.

Thanks, man. My parser dutifully chokes on that, although it has to
think about it for a *LONG* time.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:57:43PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
> > Re: BPFK Section: Quotations Also in C16 S19, we have:
> >
> > ZOI cmavo use the following word as a delimiting word, no matter
> > what it is, but using "le'u" may create difficulties.
>
> > Umm, what kind of problems? Are these problems a result of the
> > parsing methodology, or of the definition of Lojban in the CLL?
>
> If I say "zoi le'u the bogus example le'u", and you try to quote
> me with "la djan cusku lo'u zoi le'u the bogus example le'u", your
> lo'u quote terminates prematurely.

Hmmm.

That wouldn't work anyways, though; it would need to be:

"la djan cusku lo'u zoi le'u the bogus example le'u le'u"

(note the two le'u at the end).

This doesn't strike me as a problem, if zoi are supposed to work
inside lo'u ... le'u.

Which leads to the next question: *are* zoi quotes legal inside
lo'u...le'u? I'm pretty sure that the stuff in C16 S19 says that
it's *not*, because lo'u quotes all the following Lojban words,
including zoi, but can't take non-Lojban words. So the zoi gets
eaten, and then there's a bunch of crap that doesn't parse:

mi cusku lo'u zoi zoi AAck! zoi le'u

My parser actually has no problems with this, and I'm pretty sure
that's a bug. If zoi quotes work in lo'u...le'u, then your example
is no problem, because it's just nesting.

We need hand signs for the Four Horsemen Of The Internet
(http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/6095/articles/anonymity/short-pieces/new-scientist-mar1195.html)

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:11:35PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Which leads to the next question: *are* zoi quotes legal inside
> lo'u...le'u? I'm pretty sure that the stuff in C16 S19 says that
> they're *not*, because lo'u quotes all the following Lojban words,
> including zoi, but can't take non-Lojban words. So the zoi gets
> eaten, and then there's a bunch of crap that doesn't parse:
>
> mi cusku lo'u zoi zoi AAck! zoi le'u
>
> My parser actually has no problems with this, and I'm pretty sure
> that's a bug.

In fact, all three parsers accept this with no apparent problems.

That doesn't change the fact that The Red Book seems to think it's a
bug, though.

-Robin

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> My parser actually has no problems with this, and I'm pretty sure
> that's a bug. If zoi quotes work in lo'u...le'u, then your example
> is no problem, because it's just nesting.

zoi-quotes are meant to work within lo'u..le'u, but if the user is
trying to quote something with zoi le'u...le'u, then he deserves to lose.

--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@reutershealth.com
There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at
once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George
Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 12:07:33AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> > My parser actually has no problems with this, and I'm pretty
> > sure that's a bug. If zoi quotes work in lo'u...le'u, then your
> > example is no problem, because it's just nesting.
>
> zoi-quotes are meant to work within lo'u..le'u,

Can you give any validation for this, besides your memories of the
intent of the Founders? Not that that's not sufficient, but I'm
curious. It seems to violate the purpose of lo'u...le'u *entirely*,
and disagree with the Red Book.

> but if the user is trying to quote something with zoi le'u...le'u,
> then he deserves to lose.

As I said, nesting should handle it.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

 



Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Can you give any validation for this, besides your memories of the
> intent of the Founders? Not that that's not sufficient, but I'm
> curious. It seems to violate the purpose of lo'u...le'u *entirely*,
> and disagree with the Red Book.

The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can also be
quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and lo'u...le'u quotations
should be processed even though everything else is not.

--
My corporate data's a mess! John Cowan
It's all semi-structured, no less. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But I'll be carefree jcowan@reutershealth.com
Using XSLT http://www.reutershealth.com
On an XML DBMS.

 



posts: 1912

 


 
> The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can also be
> quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and lo'u...le'u quotations
> should be processed even though everything else is not.

Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo le'u}
but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.

Otherwise you get things like {lu zo zoi lo'u non-lojban le'u
lo'u other non-lojban le'u li'u} being valid, but
{lo'u zo zoi lo'u non-lojban le'u lo'u other non-lojban le'u le'u}
invalid.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:40:47AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > Can you give any validation for this, besides your memories of
> > the intent of the Founders? Not that that's not sufficient, but
> > I'm curious. It seems to violate the purpose of lo'u...le'u
> > *entirely*, and disagree with the Red Book.
>
> The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can also
> be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and lo'u...le'u
> quotations should be processed even though everything else is not.

But nested lu...li'u quotes work in lu...li'u, but they don't (in
the same way) in lo'u...le'u. Nothing has grammatical function in
lo'u...le'u; isn't that the *point*?

Umm, wait a minute. "embedded zoi and lo'u...le'u"?? Embedded
lo'u...le'u *don't* work in lo'u...le'u! The first le'u terminates
the quote, because none of the words in lo'u...le'u are processed
(except, apparently, zo and zoi).

Now I'm really confused.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:12:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- John Cowan wrote:
>
> > The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can
> > also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and
> > lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though
> > everything else is not.
>
> Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo
> le'u} but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.
>
> Otherwise you get things like
>
> {lu zo zoi lo'u non-lojban le'u lo'u other non-lojban le'u li'u}
>
> being valid, but
>
> {lo'u zo zoi lo'u non-lojban le'u lo'u other non-lojban le'u le'u}
>
> invalid.

As far as I can tell, neither of those are valid regardless. In the
first case, "non-lojban" is in a lo'u...le'u quote but not a zoi
quote (because zoi was quoted), so parsing fails (all words in
lo'u..le'u must still be Lojban). In the second case, even if zo
doesn't work on zoi, "other non-lojban" is still outside of the zoi
quote, so it still fails.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:12:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- John Cowan wrote:
>
> > The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can
> > also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and
> > lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though
> > everything else is not.
>
> Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo
> le'u} but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.

It's actually not needed for {zo lo'u}, as far as I know.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


 
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:12:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > --- John Cowan wrote:
> >
> > > The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can
> > > also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and
> > > lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though
> > > everything else is not.
> >
> > Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo
> > le'u} but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.
> >
> > Otherwise you get things like
> >
> > {lu zo zoi lo'u non-lojban le'u lo'u other non-lojban le'u li'u}
> >
> > being valid, but
> >
> > {lo'u zo zoi lo'u non-lojban le'u lo'u other non-lojban le'u le'u}
> >
> > invalid.
>
> As far as I can tell, neither of those are valid regardless. In the
> first case, "non-lojban" is in a lo'u...le'u quote but not a zoi
> quote (because zoi was quoted), so parsing fails (all words in
> lo'u..le'u must still be Lojban). In the second case, even if zo
> doesn't work on zoi, "other non-lojban" is still outside of the zoi
> quote, so it still fails.

You're right, bad example. Consider this one:

{lu zo zoi lo'u da le'u li'u}

is valid. But:

{lo'u zo zoi lo'u da le'u le'u}

is not valid if the {zoi} is active, even if {le'u} is changed
to {zo le'u}, because the zoi quote is never closed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 1912

 


 
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:12:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > --- John Cowan wrote:
> >
> > > The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can
> > > also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and
> > > lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though
> > > everything else is not.
> >
> > Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo
> > le'u} but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.
>
> It's actually not needed for {zo lo'u}, as far as I know.

Compare:

{lu zo lo'u zo le'u li'u}

is valid. But:

{lo'u zo lo'u zo le'u le'u}

if {zo} is not active with {lo'u}, is invalid, because the first
{lo'u} would remain open.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 01:36:21PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> You're right, bad example. Consider this one:
>
> {lu zo zoi lo'u da le'u li'u}
>
> is valid. But:
>
> {lo'u zo zoi lo'u da le'u le'u}
>
> is not valid if the {zoi} is active, even if {le'u} is changed to
> {zo le'u}, because the zoi quote is never closed.

Right, so if zoi is allowed in lo'u...le'u, we must also allow "zo
zoi", which means that if we want to talk about broken zoi quotes we
end up with interesting messes like:

mi pu cusku lo'u zo zoi zo zoi zoi zoi Quux zoi boi le'u

to indicate that I had previously said "zoi zoi Quux boi" by
accident.

I would much, much rather drop zoi from lo'u...le'u (as I believe
the Red Book indicates, but grammar.300 disagrees with) and have
instead:

mi pu cusku lo'u zoi zoi le'u ce'o zoi zoi Quux! zoi ce'u zo boi

(with this obviously being a degenerate example; in practice I think
most speakers would just do:

mi pu cusku lo'u zoi zoi li'o boi le'u

)

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 01:43:00PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:12:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > --- John Cowan wrote:
> > > > The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it
> > > > can also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi
> > > > and lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though
> > > > everything else is not.
> > >
> > > Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo
> > > le'u} but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.
> >
> > It's actually not needed for {zo lo'u}, as far as I know.
>
> Compare:
>
> {lu zo lo'u zo le'u li'u}
>
> is valid. But:
>
> {lo'u zo lo'u zo le'u le'u}
>
> if {zo} is not active with {lo'u}, is invalid, because the first
> {lo'u} would remain open.

WTF are you talking about? Assuming that "zo le'u" works inside
lo'u...le'u (which I'm not disputing),

{lo'u zo lo'u zo le'u le'u}

expands to:

{lo'u ignore ignore zo le'u le'u}

I see no problem, unless we allow nested lo'u, which as far as I
know is *not* allowed by either the Red Book or grammar.300.

In grammar.300 we have:

c. If the Lojban word "lo'u" (selma'o LOhU) is identified, search
for the closing delimiter "le'u" (selma'o LEhU), ignoring any such
closing delimiters absorbed by the previous two steps. The text
between the delimiters should be treated as the single token
'any_words_697'.

which pretty clearly doesn't allow nesting.

In the Red Book we have:

"lo'u" quotes all following Lojban words up to a "le'u" (but not a
"zo le'u").

which also pretty clearly doesn't allow nesting.

I have no idea where this whole nested lo'u...le'u idea came from,
but it's not part of Lojban as far as I can tell.

-Robin

 



posts: 1912

 


> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 01:43:00PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:12:22AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > --- John Cowan wrote:
> > > > > The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it
> > > > > can also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi
> > > > > and lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though
> > > > > everything else is not.
> > > >
> > > > Then embedded {zo} also has to be processed, not only for {zo
> > > > le'u} but also at least for {zo lo'u}, {zo zoi} and {zo zo}.
> > >
> > > It's actually not needed for {zo lo'u}, as far as I know.
> >
> > Compare:
> >
> > {lu zo lo'u zo le'u li'u}
> >
> > is valid. But:
> >
> > {lo'u zo lo'u zo le'u le'u}
> >
> > if {zo} is not active with {lo'u}, is invalid, because the first
> > {lo'u} would remain open.
>
> WTF are you talking about? Assuming that "zo le'u" works inside
> lo'u...le'u (which I'm not disputing),
>
> {lo'u zo lo'u zo le'u le'u}
>
> expands to:
>
> {lo'u ignore ignore zo le'u le'u}
>
> I see no problem, unless we allow nested lo'u, which as far as I
> know is *not* allowed by either the Red Book or grammar.300.

Read from the beginning. I was responding to John's message saying
that lo'u does allow nesting. So I said "then embedded zo lo'u
also has to be processed".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 1912

 


> I would much, much rather drop zoi from lo'u...le'u (as I believe
> the Red Book indicates, but grammar.300 disagrees with) and have
> instead:
>
> mi pu cusku lo'u zoi zoi le'u ce'o zoi zoi Quux! zoi ce'u zo boi
>

Why not simply:

mi pu cusku zoi kux zoi zoi Quux! boi kux

Assuming "Quux!" is not pronounced too similar to {kux}. If it
is then choose a better delimiter. :-)

 
> (with this obviously being a degenerate example; in practice I think
> most speakers would just do:
>
> mi pu cusku lo'u zoi zoi li'o boi le'u

Or just:

mi pu bacru zo boi enai zo zoi

> )

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 02:16:19PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> Read from the beginning. I was responding to John's message saying
> that lo'u does allow nesting. So I said "then embedded zo lo'u
> also has to be processed".

Aaaaah.

OK, nevermind.

-Robin

 



clsn posts: 84

John Cowan wrote:

>Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
>
>
>>Can you give any validation for this, besides your memories of the
>>intent of the Founders? Not that that's not sufficient, but I'm
>>curious. It seems to violate the purpose of lo'u...le'u *entirely*,
>>and disagree with the Red Book.
>>
>>
>
>The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can also be
>quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and lo'u...le'u quotations
>should be processed even though everything else is not.
>
>
But nesting I think still makes sense here. zoi and lo'u/le'u are
processed, you say, and that makes sense. Particularly since we need
zoi to make the non-lojban text into the equivalent of a lojban any-word
for lo'u/le'u's grammar. In which case zoi retains its magic; indeed it
must if it's to quote successfully. So the le'u used by zoi should not
be visible to the enclosing lo'u, and thus won't terminate it prematurely.

I don't think the same holds true for simple nested lo'u/le'u quotes, IMO.

Using {zo le'u} to allow le'u inside lo'u/le'u seems an ugly wart to me.

~mark

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

You snipped to much; there's not enough to have any idea what you're
talking about.

I *think* you're talking about ZOI quotes working within
lo'u...le'u. I think it's a horrible idea, and have not the
slightest intention of putting it forward as part of my proposals.

On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:55:31PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
>
> >Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Can you give any validation for this, besides your memories of
> >>the intent of the Founders? Not that that's not sufficient, but
> >>I'm curious. It seems to violate the purpose of lo'u...le'u
> >>*entirely*, and disagree with the Red Book.
> >
> >The idea is that if a text can be quoted by lu...li'u, it can
> >also be quoted by lo'u...le'u. Therefore, embedded zoi and
> >lo'u...le'u quotations should be processed even though everything
> >else is not.
>
> But nesting I think still makes sense here. zoi and lo'u/le'u are
> processed, you say, and that makes sense. Particularly since we
> need zoi to make the non-lojban text into the equivalent of a
> lojban any-word for lo'u/le'u's grammar. In which case zoi
> retains its magic; indeed it must if it's to quote successfully.

  • Nothing* should retain its magic inside lo'u...le'u.

 
> Using {zo le'u} to allow le'u inside lo'u/le'u seems an ugly wart
> to me.

Agreed.

-Robin

 



rlpowell posts: 14214

I consider this section votable.

-Robin



posts: 1912

 

The cmavo "la'o" is equivalent in most respects to "la me zoi".

 
Not really true.

{la'o zoi Shakespeare zoi} is "Shakespeare".

{la me zoi zoi Shakespeare zoi} is "the one named is-the-word-Shakespeare".

{la'o} is equivalent to {la'e zoi}, when zoi quotes a name.

mi'e xorxes



rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 10:54:21AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Quotations
> {la'o} is equivalent to {la'e zoi}, when zoi quotes a name.

Done.

-Robin

 



Re: Re: BPFK Section: Quotations
While I'm at it, it also says:

"le'u" is ungrammatical except at the end of a "lo'u" quotation.

This seems to be obvious crap; anyone have a problem with my tacking "and after "zo"" on the end?

-Robin

 



Re: BPFK Section: Quotations
Also in C16 S19, we have:

ZOI cmavo use the following word as a delimiting word, no matter
what it is, but using "le'u" may create difficulties.

Umm, what kind of problems? Are these problems a result of the parsing methodology, or of the definition of Lojban in the CLL?

-Robin

 



Re: BPFK Section: Quotations

The cmavo "la'o" is equivalent in most respects to "la me zoi".

 
Not really true.

{la'o zoi Shakespeare zoi} is "Shakespeare".

{la me zoi zoi Shakespeare zoi} is "the one named is-the-word-Shakespeare".

{la'o} is equivalent to {la'e zoi}, when zoi quotes a name.

mi'e xorxes

 



Show posts: