WikiDiscuss

On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 01:29:24PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > My problem there is that backing out of a zoi is too damned
> > hard.
> >
> > zoi .y. si si si — that's the fastest way in LTR (assuming that
> > the average user would hesitate trying to figure out how to get
> > out of it). I think "zoi si" == nothing is important.
>
> OTOH, backing out of {zoi zoi} is made easier:

I find it very unlikely that someone will say "zoi zoi" and *then*
realize they've made a mistake. Much more likely is "zoi broda",
having intended "zo broda", then realization, or realizing
immediately after zoi.

> (BTW, what happens when "anything" is empty, do you still need a
> {si} to erase it with your rules?)

Never thought about it. I think so, yeah.

> > > With exceptionless rules, SI, SA, SU, BAhE, ZEI and FAhO are
> > > instead turned off by the preceding ZEI.
> >
> > <nod> This makes it impossible to correct part of a ZEI, of
> > course, which could get painful.
>
> Yes. It's impossible to correct parts of a very long normal lujvo
> too. It's better not to use extremely long lujvo or zei-lujvo.

True.

I think I'm coming over to your side, but I'm worried about .y. bu.
I don't think we can just drop it out, much as we'd like to, but it
causes wierd problems like "zoi .y. bu...".

Would you accept "Before normal text processing, ".y. bu" is
handled, and is treated as a single word of selma'o BY during
regular LTR processing" as an exception? Do you see any problems
with this?

(My parser, of course, won't actually implement it as a seperate
pass. Not sure how I'll implement it at all, but it's certainly
possible. Probably a special case in BY itself.)

-Robin