BPFK Section: Erasures
> > Seems like what I have is actually "I'm tired of the thing
> > represented by 
", whereas the translation I have si "mi tatpi
> > sei cisma bu" or something.
>
> {sei me cisma bu} maybe. {sei} takes a selbri.
Oh, yeah. I really, really hate that. {sei} should work like {to}.
> > >> > > the same selma'o as the word that follows it; this earlier
> > > word is also erased. If you have no idea what a selma'o is,
> > >
> > > I wouldn't use this chatty style in the definition. If you
> > > have no idea what a selma'o is, look it up under "selma'o",
> > > but this advice need not be given in the definition of sa.
> >
> > I've had several complaints about SA's use of selma'o being too
> > complicated because newbies don't know what that is.
>
> So are you proposing to change SA to something else? I wouldn't
> mind.
I'm not, no. I'm just explaining why that note is there. People
wanted to change it to "erases to the previous same word", which I
strongly dislike.
> > > Besides, using the same word, may get you the wrong behaviour.
> >
> > When, exactly?
>
> {da de di sa da} for example.
<nod> Point.
Removed.
-Robin