WikiDiscuss

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

---

> I hope not something with {zai zoi gy...}, at least something in lojban. I
> suppose I had something like {na.a bu} in mind (or {ganai bu} but placeable
> between sentences, not prefixed),

You could do {na bu .a bu} or even {tei na bu a bu foi}.

That would be (at best) "~v" — a compound of “literals,” not a literal for a compound concept.

Another possibility is {na zei .a bu}, using the lujvo {na zei .a}.
Can this really make a lujvo? (Yuck!)

> but that is going to make problems for the
> symbols for OR, AND, IFF, and whatever you call the U function, since e.g.
> {abu} is already taken.

You could always base them on se.a, se.e, se.o (or na.onai) and .unai
So: {se bu .a bu}, {tei se bu .a bu foi}, or {se zei .a bu}.

Somehow this misses the goal. Of course there are the internal forms: {najabu} and the like.

> Or is that where {zai} come in (but what selector
> gets dingbats)? {zai dy na.a bu} for => (and the like)?

{dy} is for "dingbats"? Perhaps {zai norle'u bu}?

OK. How exactly are alphabet selectors to be expressed?
> All of this is for reading off wffs, the analog of spelling, I suppose. For
> talking about the character {lo nibli sinxa} (well, {nibli} is sorta wrong,
> but I get the idea) is also possible, and I suppose could be used for reading
> off well.
> pc

Presumably if the wff was part of a Lojban text it would use
the MEX module, in which case the implication would be some
operator and you would not have to mention the symbol by name.
But I don't know if MEX is really up to the task.

No more do I, which is why I am looking at this (which, I think, actually is a part of MEX).