krtisfranks wrote:
> maik wrote:
> > Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply
> placing
> > zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote?
>
>
> Good question. According to camxes, «lu broda brode li'u zei brodi li'u
> brodo» is grammatical and is interpreted as "(lu broda brode (li'u zei
> brodi) li'u) brodo", where paranthesis represent grouping. Thus, «li'u
> zei» does not end a quote and convert it to a lujvo (wherein the quote
is
> one or more rafsi (in a string) and the immediately following word is
also
> a rafsi/brivla), it converts «li'u» alone into a rafsi that is added
to
> the immediately following word and then that resultant lujvo and all
> following text is part of the quotation until the next unpaired
occurrence
> of «li'u».

lo'u..le'u zei broda would work, though.

Comment #5: Re: what about

Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 14:44:13 2015)

durka42 wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > maik wrote: > > > Rewrite: How do these proposed cmavo work differently than simply > > placing > > > zei next to an ordinary "lu...li'u" quote? > > > > > > Good question. According to camxes, «lu broda brode li'u zei brodi li'u > > brodo» is grammatical and is interpreted as "(lu broda brode (li'u zei > > brodi) li'u) brodo", where paranthesis represent grouping. Thus, «li'u > > zei» does not end a quote and convert it to a lujvo (wherein the quote > is > > one or more rafsi (in a string) and the immediately following word is > also > > a rafsi/brivla), it converts «li'u» alone into a rafsi that is added > to > > the immediately following word and then that resultant lujvo and all > > following text is part of the quotation until the next unpaired > occurrence > > of «li'u». > > lo'u..le'u zei broda would work, though. True. That is weird to me, but maybe that should just be used instead.

Comment #6: Re: what about Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 15:09:52 2015) krtisfranks wrote: > True. That is weird to me, but maybe that should just be used instead. The only real difference that I see is that «lo'e» can quote nongrammatical text- which means that it is a little freer but also a little more in danger of containing just nonsense. Since the referent of the quote is being used, meaningless garbage is possibly very bad (although it could also occassionally be useful). I maintain that being able to distribute «zei»'s is helpful. Comment #7: Re: what about Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 16:21:48 2015) > True. That is weird to me, but maybe that should just be used instead. Other differences: Error quotes are formal and are basically just taken as a string. In order to obtain the referent thereof, at least «la'e zei» must be appended to the beginning; otherwise, the lujvo has a quote in it (which may be useful for saying ""CCVC"-form words", for example). Although «zei'ei»-quotes currently must be grammatical (this functionality could be expanded if doing so is desired), the referent is automatically extracted. The result is treated as a single rafsi. Thus it may be quoted by «ra'oi», howsoever useful that may end up being. Additionally, the quoted text is treated as a single, whole semantic unit without internal components- this may be useful for saying "doghouse-builder', for a lame example, wherein "doghouse" is analyzed as a single atom of meaning. Comment #9: Re: what about Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 18:08:39 2015) This also allows for implementing the empty rafsi, if that is interesting to anyone, lol. Comment #10: Re: what about Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 19 18:13:14 2015) krtisfranks wrote: > This also allows for implementing the empty rafsi, if that is interesting > to anyone, lol. «la'e lo'u le'u zei» might work but it could also mean "the referent of the empty string", whatsoever that means. Without «la'e», it would be the empty string itself in rafsi form. Neither of these is actually the empty rafsi.