Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BurntRussianBBQ t1_j0sbc17 wrote

I am I correct in my understanding it was as simple as, when there is a choice between the right and left side of a word, always choose or "modify" right?

This seems incredibly simple. Why did not one run across this before?

38

sadness_elemental t1_j0sfbri wrote

They assumed it meant earlier rules had precedence over later rules, it's simple once you realise but they probably didn't even realise they were applying the rule wrong

45

masklinn t1_j0trht5 wrote

> They assumed it meant earlier rules had precedence over later rules

Other way around, within a priority level the later rule overrides the earlier (is the historical interpretation).

11

ColgateSensifoam t1_j0u5ihg wrote

For clarity, it was interpreted as the rule that occurs later in the rulebook applies, rather than the rule that occurs later in the word, as is actually the case

7

PfizerGuyzer t1_j0scmnr wrote

The last hundred years in particular has been spent assuming much more complicated solutions and delving into them..

29

Staerebu t1_j0t4aku wrote

A hundred years ago an academic realised Panini's approach would quickly put them out a job and promptly set about creating innumerable rules to keep themselves employed

11

laujac t1_j0u88bu wrote

Now this is a conspiracy I can get behind.

3

PfizerGuyzer t1_j0u18uu wrote

This is the kind of conspiracy the fits right at home with flat earth.

1