Wiki page Magic Words changed Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:57 GMT posts: 14214 Use this thread to discuss the Wiki page Magic Words changed page.
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:57 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 04:04:45PM -0800, webmaster@lojban.org wrote: > ! Special SI and SA Cases snip > > * SI has no effect in a LOhU...LEhU even though ZO+LEhU does, so > you can't do ZO+LEhU+SI+SI inside a LOhU...LEhU quote to get > nothing. > snip > > * SA can destroy LOhU...LEhU quotes, of course. > LOhU...LEhU+SA+LOhU, in particular, is exactly equivalent to just > LOhU (hence, the quote is re-opened). SA cannot erase to any > other word in a LOhU...LEhU quote (because they are not considered > part of any selma'o) except for ZO if a ZO+LEhU quote is used > inside the LOhU...LEhU quote (because the ZO is used grammatically > in this case, and hence has a selma'o in practice). These two rules should give you all a good idea of why I oppose the ZO+LEhU hack. If people want to talk about failed LOhU...LEhU quotes, the can bloddy damned well use ZOI, IMO. -Robin
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 02:06 GMT Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > These two rules should give you all a good idea of why I oppose the > ZO+LEhU hack. If people want to talk about failed LOhU...LEhU > quotes, the can bloddy damned well use ZOI, IMO. I should point out that "zo le'u" wasn't of course intended to allow the literal* word-by-word quotation of a lo'u...le'u within a lo'u...le'u. The intended style is lo'u ... lo'u ... zo le'u ... le'u, which is intended to be *understood* as a literal quotation. I doubt this feature, or misfeature, has ever been used (no ghits for it), and if not, perhaps it should be removed. zoi-quotation is a reasonable alternative, especially given that zoi-quotations nest nicely provided you use a different delimiter for the outer quotation. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy. Dennett and Bennett are well-known. Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett. There is also one Dummett. By their works shall ye know them. However, just as no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly known by his works. Indeed, Bummett does not exist. It is part of the function of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.
