WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Magic Words > Magic Words

Magic Words


Re: Magic Words

This are the answers to the Outstanding Questions, according to the exceptionless rules:

> Is nested lo'u...le'u allowed?

No, {lo'u} turns off every magic word that follows, including other {lo'u}s, up to the first {le'u} found.

> Not really, but lo'u has no effect and we allow "zo le'u".

The exceptionless rules do not allow {zo le'u} within the quote because {zo} is turned off and {le'u} then terminates it.

> Does zoi function in lo'u...le'u?
> No. If you need to quote a broken zoi, use another zoi.

Right.

> What does BAhE+BU do?
> Just empasizes the BU.

Right.

> The red book claims that UI cmavo can't mark BU. What's up with that?
> I have no idea, but I'm ignoring it. UI can mark anything that doesn't grab it.

Good. I have no idea what's up with that either.

> What do we do about ZOI, SI and SA interactions? Is SI allowed
> as a ZOI delimiter? Does SI after a ZOI clause erase the whole
> thing?

The exceptionless rules would accept SI and SA as delimiters.
SI after a ZOI-clause would erase the whole thing.

> SI, SA and SU are not allowed ZOI delimiters.
> 4 SI for ZOI erasure from outside.
> SA+ZOI+SI works. ZOI+SI == nothing.

Those would constitute exceptions to the exceptionless rules.

> Does SU go back to the last NIhO, LU, TUhE, or TO
> (as grammar.300 claims) or the beginning of input
> (as the Red Book claims)?
> The latter; SA can be used for the other things, and if SU works
> the former way there is no way to unequivocably erase to
> the beginning of input.

Good. Either way could work with the exceptionless rules, though.

> grammer.300 claims that ZEI works on ZOI, ZO and LOhU...LEhU
> clauses.

That agrees with the exceptionless rules. To clarify: ZEI would take a ZOI, ZO or LOhU-LEhU clause to its left, but just ZO, ZOI, LOhU or LEhU to its right. This is because ZEI cannot turn the magic off of those words once they have used it.

> I'm pretty sure this is just a YACC side effect; it certainly seems
>amazingly ridiculous to me. If anyone disagrees, let me know.
> It doesn't do any harm, and allows certain useful things (like ZEI
> lujvo with the various words that ZEI can't bind to in them).

And most importantly: It simplifies the rules.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



Show posts: