WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Magic Words > Magic Words

Magic Words


rlpowell posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 10:53:31PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 10:39:15PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > The problem is, if you want to say "I said a zei lujvo", we
> > > have:
> > >
> > > {mi pu cusku lo zei zei lujvo}
> > >
> > > or something.
> > >
> > > The problem is that if we take it by order of appearence, as
> > > you say, the first zei grabs the lo and the second zei, so we
> > > end up with "I was a speaker type-of lo type of zei type of
> > > lujvo".
> >
> > Right. So {zei zei lujvo} is not the right way to say
> > "zei-lujvo".
>
> Then what the hell is it useful for? Seriously?

I have a compromise idea. Unless you can suggest something that
handling ZEI in this way would be useful for, why don't we just say
that any string of consecutive ZEI acts as though there were only
one? Call it emphasis.

> > That's why {zo zei zei lujvo} would be useful.
>
> I just wrote that it.

s/it/in/

> > But even if {zo zei zei} were not allowed, I see no reason to
> > complicate ZEI by not letting it work by order of appearance, like
> > everything else. It looks like an exception to me.
>
> True.
>
> I hate to bring this up, but right-grouping (which is what you're
> talking about) is very hard in PEGs. I'm sure it's possible, but
> I've had some troubles.

Errrm. Left grouping. Duh. The current version right groups. The

  • only* place that I've found in the grammar where bare left grouping

is actually required is the RPN stuff, and as I mentioned I haven't
tested that well.

-Robin

 


Show posts: