Magic Words
> This isn't bad, except for:
>
> > Definition: Y is not a word.
>
> Not a good idea. Inherently contradictory, for one thing.
By that I mean it is invisible to magic words. {Y BU} would constitute an
exception.
> > ZEI: Unless it has been turned off by a preceding magic word, it
> > takes the previous word or magic word output,
> >
> snip
> >
> > BU: Unless it has been turned off by a preceding magic word, it
> > takes the previous word or magic word output,
> >
> snip
> >
> > SI: Unless it has been turned off by a preceding magic word, it
> > takes the previous word or magic word output
> >
> snip
>
> Again, where does this "magic word output" concept come from? These
> aren't functions, they are streams of text to which we are applying
> semantic meaning. Why not just stick with words?
Because sticking with words creates conflicts when more than one
magic word vie for the same word. Taking the whole magic word construct
as an "honorary word" for other magic words solves all those conflicts.
If {bu} can act on a preceding {a bu} and turn that into a lerfu, there
is no reason why it can't similarly not act on {zo a} or on {a zei e} or
on {lo'u a le'u}. The reason these are special constructs is
just that they involve magic words. Instead of saying that {bu} fails
because other magic words have already staked a claim the word it should
change into a lerfu, we say that what it changes into a lerfu is the
previous word or magic-word-construct.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com