quoting Vowels: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (Text replace - "{CODE(wrap="1]]" to "<code>") |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<code>[[jbocre: 20:39]] <tcatipax> ".i do ka'e jmina fi .ubu" = you have innate ability to add something to/with u? What am I getting wrong? | |||
[[jbocre: 20:41]] <selpa`i> Is it wrong? | [[jbocre: 20:41]] <selpa`i> Is it wrong? |
Revision as of 14:18, 21 March 2014
jbocre: 20:39 <tcatipax> ".i do ka'e jmina fi .ubu" = you have innate ability to add something to/with u? What am I getting wrong?
jbocre: 20:41 <selpa`i> Is it wrong?
jbocre: 20:41 <vensa> tcati: who said anything is wrong?
jbocre: 20:41 <selpa`i> It parses
jbocre: 20:41 <tcatipax> So, my interpretation is correct?
jbocre: 20:43 <tcatipax> I don't know how that makes sense. It's on the front page of wikipedia.
jbocre: 20:44 <tcatipax> The lojban version.
jbocre: 20:44 <selpa`i> Could ubu be an abbreviation`?
jbocre: 20:45 <Twey> Yes
jbocre: 20:45 <Twey> It has to be
jbocre: 20:45 <Twey> Otherwise it would be ‘me'o .ubu’, or something.
jbocre: 20:45 <selpa`i> So maybe the section's name starts with u
jbocre: 20:45 <vensa> its short for .uikipedias
jbocre: 20:45 <selpa`i> There you go.
jbocre: 20:45 <vensa> the sentence before says .uikipedias
jbocre: 20:46 <selpa`i> Context.
jbocre: 20:46 <vensa> hehe
jbocre: 20:46 <tcatipax> Ah.
jbocre: 20:46 <tcatipax> Thanks!
jbocre: 20:46 <vensa> je'e
jbocre: 20:47 <tcatipax> I mean, ki'e .ui
jbocre: 20:47 <vensa> Twey: wouldn {lu ubu li'u} *cut* it too?
jbocre: 20:48 <Twey> vensa: Not quite the same
jbocre: 20:48 <vensa> {li ubu} seems to cut it
jbocre: 20:48 <vensa> Twey: whats the diff?
jbocre: 20:48 <Twey> li .ubu is, I think, interpreting it as a mathematical variable with a number value
jbocre: 20:48 <vensa> I read {me'o} is the wuote-equivalent for lerfu strings
jbocre: 20:49 <vensa> ok. but y not {lu ubu li'u}?
jbocre: 20:49 <Twey> ‘lu ubu li'u’ would be quoting it as a whole utterance
jbocre: 20:49 <vensa> what does it mean "as a whole utterance"?
jbocre: 20:49 <vensa> if it were {by} instead and I used {zo by}?
jbocre: 20:50 <Twey> No, not ‘lu ubu li'u’, indeed
jbocre: 20:51 <vensa> If the whole contents of your quote ends up to be one letter {ubu), how is that different from {zo}?
jbocre: 20:51 <Twey> lu/li'u is for grammatical utterances
jbocre: 20:51 <Twey> Whole grammatical utterances
jbocre: 20:51 <Twey> So it's taking that as a whole phrase that someone said, or something like that
jbocre: 20:51 <vensa> so,would {lo'u le'u} be ok with you?
jbocre: 20:52 <Twey> No, because that doesn't take grammar into account
jbocre: 20:52 == sshc jbocre: ~sshc@unaffiliated/sshc has quit jbocre: Read error: Connection reset by peer
jbocre: 20:52 <vensa> what do u mean?
jbocre: 20:52 <Twey> So ’ubu’ would be the two words ‘.u’ and ‘bu’
jbocre: 20:52 <vensa> it wont parse the {bu}?
jbocre: 20:52 <vensa> so you're saying {zo by} is not equivalent to {lu ubu li'u}? so basically theres no way to quote a U?
jbocre: 20:52 <Twey> Not the single character U
jbocre: 20:52 <Twey> Sure there is — me'o
jbocre: 20:52 <vensa> (except {me'o})
jbocre: 20:53 <vensa> but {by} can be quoted in two ways
jbocre: 20:53 <vensa> that doesnt seem fair
jbocre: 20:53 <Twey> You can also quote with lu/li'u, but that means that it's dereferenced too (although possibly in a different context)
jbocre: 20:53 <vensa> another reason to prefer my term for U: {u'y}
jbocre: 20:53 * Twey doesn't see what's wrong with me'o.
jbocre: 20:54 <vensa> nothings *wrong* with it
jbocre: 20:54 <vensa> I just dont like the injustice that befalls vowels in lojban
jbocre: 20:54 <vensa> :){CODE}