WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Magic Words > Magic Words

Magic Words


posts: 1912

 


 
> > > I am not completely averse to the exceptionless rules (they are
> > > quite simple, after all), but I'd really prefer to stick with
> > > real things in the text stream (i.e. words) if we can.
> >
> > But honorary words are just as real as words! {lo'u} can take more
> > than one word in its scope, why is it such a big deal that other
> > magic words take more than one word in some cases as well?
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1. It's a substantial change to the language.

Not really. In many cases, that's how it works now: {a bu bu} already
follows that concept.

> 2. I have no idea what most of these constructs would actually
> *mean*.

That's the easy part. { bu} is absolutely conventional.
Giving a meaning to {zo a bu} is no harder than giving a meaning
to {cei bu}. And we don't *have* to give it any meaning other
than say it is a lerfu. The same applies to {zei}. Why would
{zo a zei da} present more difficulties in meaning than
{cei zei da}?

The only magic words that would work with magic word constructs
are BU, ZEI, SI and to some extent SA. The rest don't look back,
so constructs don't affect them as input.

(I'm not sure what to say about UIs. It doesn't look like they
are much like magic words.)

Let's see how much the exceptionless rules differ from the
prescription:

> Y is completely ignored (i.e. considered whitespace) except before BU.

Same thing. i.e. {Y BU} would have to be an exception.

> ZO quotes the following word, no matter what it is, except Y. Words
> quoted with ZO lose their grammatical functions.

No change.

> FAhO terminates the word or text stream unequivocably, unless
> quoted with ZO.

The exceptionless rules also allow {da zei fa'o}, {zoi fa'o ... fa'o},
and {lo'u ... fa'o ... le'u}, in which the magic of {fa'o} has been
turned off by a preceding magic word.

> LOhU quotes all following Lojban words up to a LEhU (but not a ZO+LEhU;
> this is to allow nested LOhU...LEhU quotes inside a LOhU...LEhU, so you
> can talk about mistakes you made that include a previous error quote).
> Except for the ZO+LEhU case (which should be read as simply LEhU inside
> a LOhU...LEhU quote) all Lojban words within a LOhU...LEhU quote are
> read without any grammar and have no grammatical effects.

The exceptionles rules make no exception for {zo le'u}. You don't
mention the exception made for {fa'o} here.

> LEhU is ungrammatical except at the end of a LOhU quotation and
> after ZO.

The exceptionless rules will also allow {zoi le'u ... le'u} and
{da zei le'u}, in which the magic of LEhU is turned off by a
preceding magic word.

> SI erases the preceding word unless it is a ZO. Y is ignored.

This is probably the most different for the exceptionless rules.

SI would NOT erase the previous word in the following cases:
{zo si}, {zoi si ... si}, {da zei si}, {lo'u ... si ... le'u},
where the magic of SI is turned off by a preceding magic word.

SI would erase MORE than a single word in the following cases:
{zo a si}, {zoi zoi ... zoi si}, {da zei de si},
{lo'u ... le'u si}, {a bu si}, {... sa si}, where SI erases
the whole preceding magic word construct.

> SA erases the preceding word and other words, unless the preceding
> word is a ZO. SA erases back until it sees a word of the same
> selma'o as the word that follows SA. The previous same-selma'o word
> is itself erased. Y is ignored for selma'o matching purposes.

With the exceptionless rules, {sa} doesn't erase anything in
{zo sa}, {zoi sa ... sa}, {lo'u ... sa ... le'u}, {da zei sa},
where its magic has been turned off by a preceding magic word.

How is the selmaho rule supposed to work with respect to words
grabbed by magic words? Do they count for SA? For example:

mi cusku zo broda sa bacru

Does {bacru} replace {cusku} or {broda}? (With the exceptionless
rules, it would replace {cusku}, because {broda} is hidden within
a magic word construct, so SA doesn't see it.)

> SU erases itself and all words back to the beginning of the
> current conversation for the speaker that says it. If spoken twice,
> it also erases the other speaker's words. In computer input cases
> SU, in general, erases itself and all words to the beginning of the
> input (as most computer input cases cannot distinguish between speakers).

With exceptionless rules, SU can appear deactivated by a preceding
magic word in: {zo su}, {zoi su ... su}, {lo'u ... su ...le'u} and
{da zei su}.

> ZOI cmavo use the following word as a delimiting word, no matter
> what it is, execept Y (which is ignored); and SI, SA and SU (which
> erase it).

With exceptionless rules there would be no exceptions. (Y not counting
as a word.)

ZOI is deactivated in {zo zoi}, {zoi zoi ... zoi}, {lo'u ... zoi ... le'u}
and {da zei zoi}.

> ZEI combines the preceding and the following word into a lujvo. For
> words to its left, it does not affect SI, SA, and SU (it affects
> whatever is to the left after the erasing is done; if nothing is left
> an error result);

This appears to be the same with exceptionless rules:

{da de si zei di} is a tanru unit. {zei} attaches the preceding
construct {da de si} to the following word {di} to form a tanru
unit. Of course, the meaning of the construct {da de si} is the
same as that of the word {da}.

> ZO and LOhU (which quote it); ZOI (which uses it
> as a delimiter);

That would be the same: {zo zei}, {lo'u ... zei ... le'u},
{zoi zei ... zei}. But {zo}, {zoi} and {lo'u} are allowed
as the second part of a zei: {da zei zo}, {da zei lo'u},
{da zei zoi}.

> BAhE and Y (which it skips);

In {da ba'e zei de}, {ba'e} modifies {zei} but does
not turn off its magic, so that's the same. But {ba'e} is
allowed as the second part of zei: {da zei ba'e}, where
{ba'e}'s magic is turned off by {zei}.

> ZEI (which would lead
> to grouping issues, and hence is an error to attempt);

No grouping issues with the exceptionless rules: {da zei zei}
is perfectly acceptable because the first zei turns off the
second.

> and FAhO (which
> makes no sense because the stream ends at the FAhO).

{da zei fa'o} is acceptable with the exceptionless rules because
zei turns off the magic of fa'o.

> For words to its
> right, it does not affect SI, SA, and SU (which erase it); BAhE and Y
> (which it skips); ZEI (which would lead to grouping issues, and hence
> is an error to attempt); and FAhO (which results in an error).

With exceptionless rules, SI, SA, SU, BAhE, ZEI and FAhO are instead
turned off by the preceding ZEI.

> ZO,
> ZOI and LOhU...LEhU clauses are attached to the ZEI lujvo in their
> entirety.

With exceptionless rules, that's the case if they are to the left of
ZEI. To the right, they are treated as a single word because their
magic is deactivated before they have a chance to make the clause.

> BAhE effects ZEI as usual, so ZEI skips over any preceeding
> BAhE cmavo to affect the word before them.

To the left, yes. To the right, BAhE is deactivated by ZEI.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



BU makes the preceding word into a lerfu word, except for ZO, ZEI and LOhU
(which quote it), ZOI (which uses it as a delimiter); LEhU (which would result
in bizarrely re-opening the LOhU...LEhU, and hence is an error); SI, SA and SU
(it affects whatever is to the left after the erasing is done; if nothing is
left an error results); BAhE (which it skips); BU (which would lead to grouping
issues, and hence is an error to attempt); and FAhO (after which anything,
including BU, is ignored). Note that Y is specifically included. BAhE effects
BU as usual, so BU skips over any preceeding BAhE cmavo to affect the word
before them. Multiple BU may be used in succession, in which case a new
letteral is formed for each additional BU (i.e. "broda bu" is a different
letteral from "broda bu bu"). However, "bu bu" by itself is illegal.

 





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 



Show posts: