Talk:BPFK Section: Quotations
> !! Examples of lu Usage > > xu lu setca le stedu le xarju li'u xlali xe fanva fo le glico > Is "Go stick your head in a pig" a bad translation from English?
I'd say the English should be "sticks the head in a pig", or else add a {ko} to the Lojban.
> !! Examples of lo'u Usage > > lo'u se ra'a le'u cu xamgu se pilno > "pertains to" is useful.
This one too could have been done with lu-li'u, since {se ra'a} is a valid fragment.
But perhaps lu-li'u should be reserved for texts quoted as texts, and lo'u-le'u used for quoted words even when the words could constitute a text by themselves. Here we are not talking about the text {se ra'a} but only about the word combination, so lo'u-le'u seems better.
But then we shouldn't call them "error quotes", but "loose words quotes" or something like that.
> mu'i ma do djica lo nu casnu lo'u co co co le'u bu > Why would you want to talk about "co co co"-as-a-letter?
That would require a {me'o}, I think. Otherwise, the lerfu is presumably acting as a pronoun.
> zo lo'u krasi lo srera te sitna > "lo'u" begins error quotations. > > lo'u co da le'u zei ritli cu lujvo da poi no da djuno > "co da type-of ritli" is a lujvo meaning no-one knows what.
Quotes around {lo'u co da zei ritli} are needed.
> !! Proposed Definition of zo > > ;zo (ZO): One word quotation. Quotes the next word only. Quotes a > single Lojban word. Does not quote cmavo compound or tanru in their > entirety; only the first word is quoted.
Since you mention cmavo compounds and tanru, you might as well mention zei-lujvo, bu-lerfu, other zo-quotes, emphasized words, and the rest of the magic constructs.
For grammatical purposes, "zo" > binds with the following word. The combination is considered a single word of > the pseudo selma'o any-word
Perhaps we should clarify that that is for following magic words, not for preceding ones.
> zo zo .e zo zei .e zo zoi .e zo bu .e zo lo'u .e zo di si zo si cu vacri .y. > sa zo si cu valsi > "zo" and "zei" and "zoi" and "bu" and "lo'u" and "di", I mean "si" are air, > umm, I mean ... "si" are words.
ba'e makfa valsi 
> klama zei zo cu lujvo da poi no da djuno > "klama type-of zo" is a lujvo meaning no-one knows what.
lu klama zei zo li'u
> !! Examples of zoi Usage .... > The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u > with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be > pathological.
(I think you had that for "zo" too.)
> mi so'a roi na morji le cmene be zoi zoi That letter that you use between a
> user id and a host name in an e-mail address zoi bu
> I can never remember the name of the letter @.
Supposedly it needs a {me'o}. (It's a strange translation into English too, from quoted English to a symbol.)
> !! Proposed Definition of la'o > > ;la'o (ZOI): Non-Lojban name quotation. Creates a delimited non-Lojban > name. The resulting quote sumti is treated as a name. The result is treated > as a single word. The cmavo "la'o" is equivalent in most respects to "la me > zoi".
Not strictly. In {la me zoi zoi ... zoi}, the words "me zoi zoi" are part of the name. In {la'o zoi ... zoi} the name only begins after the {zoi}. {la'o} is closer to {la'e zoi}.
> xu do nelci le cnino se viska be la'o gy. lojban.org gy. > Do you like the new look of lojban.org?
pe'i {jvinu} is better for "look".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 05:53:27AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > But perhaps lu-li'u should be reserved for texts quoted as texts, > and lo'u-le'u used for quoted words even when the words could > constitute a text by themselves. Here we are not talking about the > text {se ra'a} but only about the word combination, so lo'u-le'u > seems better. > > But then we shouldn't call them "error quotes", but "loose words > quotes" or something like that.
I can't think of a good way to explain or name that, but I will add a usage note to that effect:
Sometimes, "lo'u" quoting is used when the text is grammatical, either because the user wishes just to quote the words by themselves, out of context, or so the user doesn't have to think about whether the utterance might be grammatical or not.
> > !! Proposed Definition of zo > > > > ;zo (ZO): One word quotation. Quotes the next word only. > > Quotes a single Lojban word. Does not quote cmavo compound or > > tanru in their entirety; only the first word is quoted. > > Since you mention cmavo compounds and tanru, you might as well > mention zei-lujvo, bu-lerfu, other zo-quotes, emphasized words, > and the rest of the magic constructs.
Let's not: It does not quote entire constructs of any kind, only their first word.
> > For grammatical purposes, "zo" binds with the following word. > > The combination is considered a single word of the pseudo > > selma'o any-word > > Perhaps we should clarify that that is for following magic words, > not for preceding ones.
Is "with the following word" not clear enough? I don't understand.
> > zo zo .e zo zei .e zo zoi .e zo bu .e zo lo'u .e zo di si zo si
> > cu vacri .y. sa zo si cu valsi
> > "zo" and "zei" and "zoi" and "bu" and "lo'u" and "di", I mean
> > "si" are air, umm, I mean ... "si" are words.
>
> ba'e makfa valsi
Yeah, that was definately the most pathological of the lot. I
enjoyed writing it.
> > mi so'a roi na morji le cmene be zoi zoi That letter that you > > use between a user id and a host name in an e-mail address zoi > > bu > > I can never remember the name of the letter @. > > Supposedly it needs a {me'o}.
True.
> (It's a strange translation into English too, from quoted English > to a symbol.)
I was trying to make it clear that the Lojban is a single letter.
> > !! Proposed Definition of la'o > > > > ;la'o (ZOI): Non-Lojban name quotation. Creates a > > delimited non-Lojban name. The resulting quote sumti is treated > > as a name. The result is treated as a single word. The cmavo > > "la'o" is equivalent in most respects to "la me zoi". > > Not strictly. In {la me zoi zoi ... zoi}, the words "me zoi zoi" > are part of the name. In {la'o zoi ... zoi} the name only begins > after the {zoi}. {la'o} is closer to {la'e zoi}.
lo se cmene be zoi?
> > xu do nelci le cnino se viska be la'o gy. lojban.org gy. > > Do you like the new look of lojban.org? > > pe'i {jvinu} is better for "look".
I didn't write it. But since it's an example, I don't much
mind editing it. Done.
-Robin
> > > For grammatical purposes, "zo" binds with the following word. > > > The combination is considered a single word of the pseudo > > > selma'o any-word > > > > Perhaps we should clarify that that is for following magic words, > > not for preceding ones. > > Is "with the following word" not clear enough? I don't understand.
I meant in the second sentence. "The comination is considered a single word" for following magic words, not preceding ones. So {da zei zo broda} is a tanru of {da zei zo} and {broda}, not a lujvo made of {da} and {zo broda}.
> > > !! Proposed Definition of la'o > > > > > > ;la'o (ZOI): Non-Lojban name quotation. Creates a > > > delimited non-Lojban name. The resulting quote sumti is treated > > > as a name. The result is treated as a single word. The cmavo > > > "la'o" is equivalent in most respects to "la me zoi". > > > > Not strictly. In {la me zoi zoi ... zoi}, the words "me zoi zoi" > > are part of the name. In {la'o zoi ... zoi} the name only begins > > after the {zoi}. {la'o} is closer to {la'e zoi}. > > lo se cmene be zoi?
That works, yes.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 06:07:05AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > For grammatical purposes, "zo" binds with the following > > > > word. The combination is considered a single word of the > > > > pseudo selma'o any-word > > > > > > Perhaps we should clarify that that is for following magic > > > words, not for preceding ones. > > > > Is "with the following word" not clear enough? I don't > > understand. > > I meant in the second sentence. "The comination is considered a > single word" for following magic words, not preceding ones. So {da > zei zo broda} is a tanru of {da zei zo} and {broda}, not a lujvo > made of {da} and {zo broda}.
I haven't pointed it out anywhere else, because that's what left-to-right is for, so I'd rather not.
> > > > ;la'o (ZOI): Non-Lojban name quotation. Creates a > > > > delimited non-Lojban name. The resulting quote sumti is > > > > treated as a name. The result is treated as a single word. > > > > The cmavo "la'o" is equivalent in most respects to "la me > > > > zoi". > > > > > > Not strictly. In {la me zoi zoi ... zoi}, the words "me zoi > > > zoi" are part of the name. In {la'o zoi ... zoi} the name only > > > begins after the {zoi}. {la'o} is closer to {la'e zoi}. > > > > lo se cmene be zoi? > > That works, yes.
vi'o
-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/
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
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
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
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/
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/
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
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.
> 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
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/
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/
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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