WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Magic Words > Magic Words

Magic Words

rlpowell posts: 14214

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 04:32:00PM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 wrote:
> >Re: Magic Words A simple question:
> >
> >How many of you think that the rules as I currently have them
> >written would be very hard for you to learn?
> For the most part, I think they're not too bad, but there are a
> few parts that I know I'd have trouble with. I think the "zo le'u
> inside lo'u" stuff in particular comes across as something of a
> wart (the number of times it gets mentioned, for instance, as
> exceptions to other rules, makes it annoying).

Heh. It *is* part of the current language, though, and removing it
constitutes a change to the language as it stands.

> Also, I might mention here an issue I've been wanting to post
> elsewhere, you've got
> BU makes the preceding word into a lerfu word, except for ZO, ...
> BU (which would lead to grouping issues, and hence is an error to
> attempt); ... 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.
> That seems to contradict itself about bu bu. Should the "BU
> (which would lead to grouping issues, and hence is an error to
> attempt);" part be stricken?

"bu bu" by itself is an error. "da bu bu" is not.

> Also, I was led to wonder whether "fa'o si" is legal.

  • Anything* after fa'o is legal. In both versions, though, the text

stream ends at the fa'o, and si can't fix it.

> Also, you have "SU+SI == nothing". Does that mean nothing in the
> sense of "text before the SU is undisturbed" or nothing as in "no
> text is left whatsoever".

The former.

> What does "SA+SU" or "SA+SA" mean?

Both are errors.

> Is SA an error if there are no previous words of the desired
> selma'o?

Currently, yes, although in my parser I actually allow SA at the
beginning of text, and I'd want that in whatever we settle on.

> >For those of you who have also read xorxes' stuff, do you find it
> >easier?
> Easier to learn, absolutely, no question about it.


> Easier to use, not really, since yours make it easier to, for
> instance, make corrections piecewise in zoi delimiters.

> I'd really like to see actual texts where there are differences in
> interpretation between the two sets of rules, to get an idea of
> how often it matters.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

Made a big comparison table at the bottom.



Show posts: