BPFK Section: Quotations
John Cowan wrote:
>Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
>
>
>>Can you give any validation for this, besides your memories of the
>>intent of the Founders? Not that that's not sufficient, but I'm
>>curious. It seems to violate the purpose of lo'u...le'u *entirely*,
>>and disagree with the Red Book.
>>
>>
>
>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.
>
>
But nesting I think still makes sense here. zoi and lo'u/le'u are
processed, you say, and that makes sense. Particularly since we need
zoi to make the non-lojban text into the equivalent of a lojban any-word
for lo'u/le'u's grammar. In which case zoi retains its magic; indeed it
must if it's to quote successfully. So the le'u used by zoi should not
be visible to the enclosing lo'u, and thus won't terminate it prematurely.
I don't think the same holds true for simple nested lo'u/le'u quotes, IMO.
Using {zo le'u} to allow le'u inside lo'u/le'u seems an ugly wart to me.
~mark