BPFK Section: Quotations
You snipped to much; there's not enough to have any idea what you're
talking about.
I *think* you're talking about ZOI quotes working within
lo'u...le'u. I think it's a horrible idea, and have not the
slightest intention of putting it forward as part of my proposals.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:55:31PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> 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.
- Nothing* should retain its magic inside lo'u...le'u.
> Using {zo le'u} to allow le'u inside lo'u/le'u seems an ugly wart
> to me.
Agreed.
-Robin