WikiDiscuss

---

> To give a concrete example of why this bothers me, the exceptionless
> rules cause an error for:
>
> broda broda si bu
>
> because BU acts on the "output" of the previous magic word, si,
> which is nothing, but BU isn't allowed to act on nothing, so an
> error results.

No. The "output" of si is not nothing. SI erases the previous word
and leaves the one before that as the last word of the speech stream.
So its output is the word before last.

> The other problem is that writing up definitions based on the
> exceptionless rules pretty much requires enshrining the term "magic
> word".

I'm not sure this would be necessary. But it does require the notion
of "honorary word", or "pseudo-word" or some such. In the case of
{broda broda si bu}, {si} leaves the honorary word {broda brode si}
which has the same meaning as {broda}, for {bu} to act on.

> I am not completely averse to the exceptionless rules (they are
> quite simple, after all), but I'd really prefer to stick with real
> things in the text stream (i.e. words) if we can.

But honorary words are just as real as words! {lo'u} can take more
than one word in its scope, why is it such a big deal that other
magic words take more than one word in some cases as well?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com