WikiDiscuss

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:56:17AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > In fact, ba'e will cause many problems, even with left-to-right
> > ordering, which is why I made a seperate section ("Marking
> > Words") for it and UI.
>
> That's an important point.

I thought so.

> If we define "magic word" as any word that deals with the
> construct "any-word", then UI and BAhE are not magic words. They
> do deal with every word in the same way, but they don't deal with
> the construct "any-word" or anything like it, which disables the
> ordinary function of any word.

<nod>

> zoi-word =zoi any-word anything that-word
> (I'm not sure how this one is formalized)

Poorly; truly formalizing it requires a full-on Context Sensitive
Grammar. Thanks, but no thanks. My parser uses code attached to
the production to do it, and I assume the other two are the same.

> Where:
>
> any-word = zo-word | zei-word | bu-word | lo'u-word
> | zoi-word | A | ... | ZOhU

Well, in your universe. Don't forget BRIVLA and CMENE.

> > {broda ba'e si broda} does very much the wrong thing under the
> > Exceptionless Rules, for example; the result is {broda *si*
> > broda}, so si stays in the speech stream.
>
> {broda ba'e si brode} would be an emphatically deleted {broda},
> replaced by {brode}: i.e. {ba'e} is always (no exceptions)
> absorbed by the following word. The construct {ba'e si} would be
> an emphasized word eraser.

I'm sorry, but no matter how many times I read that my brain still
treats it as an exception. SI is just *more* *important* then BAhE
to me, and it seems bizarre that SI wouldn't do its proper job
(erasing BAhE) in this case.

However, someone who "grew up" with your system likely wouldn't feel
that way. I just wanted to get it out.

-Robin