WikiDiscuss

---

> In fourty-eight *THOUSAND* lines of IRC, there are *SIX* instances
> ce'e, nu'i, nu'u and pe'e. That's *combined*. I can't imagine a reason to
> *not* build in a work around for an aspect of the language that is
> *that* hard to use.
>
> Here they are:
>
> 15:18 <fracture> nu'ige zo by. .a zo beiste nu'ugi zo zy. .a zo zgana
> toji'a
> zo viska toi
>
> Parses.

This is the only relevant instance for the structure involved,
which is forethought connection of termsets. All the others
use afterthought connectives with pe'e, which would not be
replaced by ge.

That instance parses, but it is not the intended use of nu'ige.
In that example, you would get the exact same meaning without
the nu'i: {ge zo by. .a zo beiste gi zo zy. .a zo zgana}
is already grammatical and has the same meaning, everything
is part of the same term.

So in the fourty-eight thousand lines of IRC there are zero
instances of proper {nu'i gek term term /nu'u/ gik term term
/nu'u/}.

I think the PEG rule would have to be something like this:

gek-termset <- gek terms-gik-terms

terms-gik-terms <- term (gik / terms-gik-terms) term

That way the number of terms grabbed after the gik would be
the same as the number of terms between gek and gik.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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