jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "zei'ei"
[parent] [root]
Comment #1: what about lu...li'u zei broda
maik (Mon Jan 19 03:45:07 2015)

How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply placing zei
next to an ordinary lu...li'u quote?

Comment #2: Re: what about "lu...li'u zei broda"
maik (Mon Jan 19 03:52:31 2015)

Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply placing
zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote?

Comment #3: Re: what about
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 04:16:31 2015)

maik wrote:
> Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply
placing
> zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote?


Good question. According to camxes, «lu broda brode li'u zei brodi li'u
brodo» is grammatical and is interpreted as "(lu broda brode (li'u zei
brodi) li'u) brodo", where paranthesis represent grouping. Thus, «li'u
zei» does not end a quote and convert it to a lujvo (wherein the quote is
one or more rafsi (in a string) and the immediately following word is also
a rafsi/brivla), it converts «li'u» alone into a rafsi that is added to
the immediately following word and then that resultant lujvo and all
following text is part of the quotation until the next unpaired occurrence
of «li'u».

Comment #4: Re: what about
Alex Burka (Mon Jan 19 05:00:10 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> maik wrote:
> > Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply
> placing
> > zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote?
>
>
> Good question. According to camxes, «lu broda brode li'u zei brodi li'u
> brodo» is grammatical and is interpreted as "(lu broda brode (li'u zei
> brodi) li'u) brodo", where paranthesis represent grouping. Thus, «li'u
> zei» does not end a quote and convert it to a lujvo (wherein the quote
is
> one or more rafsi (in a string) and the immediately following word is
also
> a rafsi/brivla), it converts «li'u» alone into a rafsi that is added
to
> the immediately following word and then that resultant lujvo and all
> following text is part of the quotation until the next unpaired
occurrence
> of «li'u».

lo'u..le'u zei broda would work, though.

Comment #5: Re: what about
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 14:44:13 2015)

durka42 wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > maik wrote:
> > > Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply
> > placing
> > > zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote?
> >
> >
> > Good question. According to camxes, «lu broda brode li'u zei brodi
li'u
> > brodo» is grammatical and is interpreted as "(lu broda brode (li'u
zei
> > brodi) li'u) brodo", where paranthesis represent grouping. Thus,
«li'u
> > zei» does not end a quote and convert it to a lujvo (wherein the
quote
> is
> > one or more rafsi (in a string) and the immediately following word is
> also
> > a rafsi/brivla), it converts «li'u» alone into a rafsi that is added
> to
> > the immediately following word and then that resultant lujvo and all
> > following text is part of the quotation until the next unpaired
> occurrence
> > of «li'u».
>
> lo'u..le'u zei broda would work, though.

True. That is weird to me, but maybe that should just be used instead.

Comment #6: Re: what about
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 15:09:52 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:

> True. That is weird to me, but maybe that should just be used instead.

The only real difference that I see is that «lo'e» can quote
nongrammatical text- which means that it is a little freer but also a
little more in danger of containing just nonsense. Since the referent of
the quote is being used, meaningless garbage is possibly very bad
(although it could also occassionally be useful).

I maintain that being able to distribute «zei»'s is helpful.

Comment #7: Re: what about
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 16:21:48 2015)

> True. That is weird to me, but maybe that should just be used instead.

Other differences:

Error quotes are formal and are basically just taken as a string. In order
to obtain the referent thereof, at least «la'e zei» must be appended to
the beginning; otherwise, the lujvo has a quote in it (which may be useful
for saying ""CCVC"-form words", for example). Although «zei'ei»-quotes
currently must be grammatical (this functionality could be expanded if
doing so is desired), the referent is automatically extracted.

The result is treated as a single rafsi. Thus it may be quoted by
«ra'oi», howsoever useful that may end up being. Additionally, the
quoted text is treated as a single, whole semantic unit without internal
components- this may be useful for saying "doghouse-builder', for a lame
example, wherein "doghouse" is analyzed as a single atom of meaning.

Comment #9: Re: what about
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 18:08:39 2015)

This also allows for implementing the empty rafsi, if that is interesting
to anyone, lol.

Comment #10: Re: what about
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 18:13:14 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> This also allows for implementing the empty rafsi, if that is
interesting
> to anyone, lol.


«la'e lo'u le'u zei» might work but it could also mean "the referent of
the empty string", whatsoever that means. Without «la'e», it would be
the empty string itself in rafsi form. Neither of these is actually the
empty rafsi.

Comment #8: Re: what about
maik (Mon Jan 19 17:21:01 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> maik wrote:
> > Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply
> placing
> > zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote?
>
>
> Good question. According to camxes, «lu broda brode li'u zei brodi li'u
> brodo» is grammatical and is interpreted as "(lu broda brode (li'u zei
> brodi) li'u) brodo", where paranthesis represent grouping. Thus, «li'u
> zei» does not end a quote and convert it to a lujvo (wherein the quote
is
> one or more rafsi (in a string) and the immediately following word is
also
> a rafsi/brivla), it converts «li'u» alone into a rafsi that is added
to
> the immediately following word and then that resultant lujvo and all
> following text is part of the quotation until the next unpaired
occurrence
> of «li'u».
Fair enough, I didn't realize that. It might be worth reconsidering the
camxes implementation. Maybe there's some good reason otherwise, but it
seems to me that when li'u comes first, then li'u should take
precedence. If someone (really) needs to join the word li'u into a lujvo
then "lo'u li'u le'u zei broda" is available. I would also go so far as
to consider "broda zei (lu ... li'u)" as more useful than the alternative
parse.

Maybe the camxes experts can chime in.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?