WikiDiscuss

---

> On this view, the second "sa" is effectively quoted rather than interpreted,
> but normally the word after "sa" is to be interpreted.

I'm saying it should be interpreted like any other word:

When you get to the first sa, you look at the next word
and erase everything till the previous occurrence of a
word of that selmaho or to the beginning of text if no
such word is found. (Since you won't find another sa,
that means you will erase to the beginning of text.)

Now you do the same for the next sa. Since it is now
at the beginning of text, it has nothing else to erase.

It is the same interpretation for every word.
The current implementation interprets the second sa
differently than other words.

> I think the most reasonable thing is either the existing rule or to ignore
> additional sa's.

I would agree with a rule for ignoring additional sa's if the
rule for sa in general was to do nothing when it doesn't find
any previous word of the same selmaho of the following word.
Then sa sa wouldn't be an exception.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com