WikiDiscuss

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