[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 30/08/2012 02:34:
>>
>> Because so far only V('V)* are variables.
>
> I'd assumed V(V)* are variables, and we're writing <'> only because writing stuff in an obviously Lojbanish way stops us getting sidetracked by phonology discussion. I was further assuming that Lojban /'/ would not exist in Xorban, but that in V'Vthe <'> is intended as Lojban /'/ rather than <'>=<q>=[?].
Well, I'm just trying to keep it simple for now. Formalizing the rules
for the proposed restrictions on vowel sequences would take some work,
and the result will end up looking quite messy, whereas V('V)* is
straightforfard.
>> See: http://xorban.wordpress.com/grammar/
>
> A complement is that which, when added to a formula, yields a formula?
>
> I can see why the term was chosen, but it's also confusing, since you'd expect it to mean something closer to its ordinary syntactic meaning -- e.g. binary operator has two complements, each of which is a formula. Given my background in syntax, I tend to think of syntactic structure in terms of combinatorial properties of words, so the "formula:= complement formula" rule seems weird -- still, it does the job of specifying the combinatorics.
Any suggestions for better names for the rules? We've been constantly
changing the names, so nothing is settled.
mu'o mi'e xorxes