WikiDiscuss

---

> What we want is a transform of {pybu ?bu kuybu cu vlina le natfe be py (?)
> kuy (first ? for the unknown symbol, second for whether there need be a
> break to kee the p and q from running together in a literal string)

"P" is to "py" as "Q" is to "kybu"
"py" is to "pybu" as "kybu" is to "kybubu"

So I think what you mean, taking say {implik. bu} for the symbol
in question, is:

pybu implik.bu kybubu vlina le natfe be py boi kybu

But, shouldn't it be {me'o pybu implik.bu kybubu}?
Otherwise we seem to have just some odd pronoun.
An I'm not quite sure why {pybu} and {kybubu} instead
of {py} and {kybu}. After all, {py} and {pybu} are simply
two different lerfu. It is not clear that one is more of
a symbol than the other.

In answer to Rob:
> The same objections apply, of course, to all lerfu.

I too think all lerfu, except in their use as pronouns,
are objectionable. I think mixing lerfu with names
of symbols and characters is very confusing.

> I would assume that the
> various implication marks had different names (single arrow, double arrow,
> horseshoe, hook, to mention the most common).

And presumably different authors might use different symbols
for the same concept, and one symbol might be used by different
authors for different concepts. So "single arrow" may or may
not correspond with "implication symbol", depending on context.
I've no idea whether a lerfu could represent "single arrow",
"implication symbol", neither, or both, or some combination.

> And why, exactly (though you
> claim to have explained it before) is pronouncing the symbol useless?

I'm not even sure at this point whether the symbol is to be
pronounced according to its form or to its function.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html