BPFK Section: Quotations
> 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