Whenever I first learned {soi}, I h= ad a similar thought, but slightly different. It's not to take SOI and make= it JOI, because that's basically completely undesired. Instead, it would s= ay:

Use SOI like JOI between sumti, but only = ;between sumti. (SOI thus allows {ku} elision) SOI, like JOI, is allowed to= make a SOI series. ({ko'a soi ko'e soi ko'i} is allowed.) SOI asserts that= all sumti in the series can be swapped in any order without changing the v= alidity of the overall bridi. Otherwise, you can remove all SOI (and insert= the possibly elided {ku} where necessary) and parse the bridi exactly. (So= every sumti still falls into the place structure as if SOI wasn't there, e= xcept that the components of the series can be swapped and replaced in any = order.)

The benefit is that

mi prami do = soi vo'a vo'e

is shortened to

mi soi do prami

And even more beneficial are longer statements, such as

mi bevri= lo tanxe ku ti soi tu ca'o bi cacra ca lo cabdei

"I carried boxe= s there and back for eight hours today."

(In the current system, = the placement of {soi} is rather annoying as well, as it kind of... sucks, = no matter where you put it.)

The main reason I had= for the idea was that Lojban goes through so much effort to allow any plac= e structure order that it is always the case that {soi} could b= e between the necessary sumti, with proper rearranging. Secondarily, it all= ows the extension of "vice-versa" to include multiple items. (The current S= OI uses the restriction of requiring exactly two items to help with VOhA el= ision.)

However, this type of change sorely disagr= ees with current usage

Pardon, current usage? Does a= nybody use it? How many times in the corpus it is met? Even L4B mentions it= as unsettled and the CLL has two different examples without proper explana= tions. It sounds more like a waste of precious cmavo space.

, so a new word would be more prope= r than a replacement.

On a complete side note, I a= lso dislike the current SOI process as it feels like it was created with la= me reasons behind it. I get the feeling that somebody came up with VOhA for= reflexives and somebody didn't like that a whole series of words was being= created for one purpose. That, or maybe somebody liked that {vo'a vo'e} pa= rallels "vice-versa" phonetically. Both of which are pretty lame reasons to= not think of a better way of doing things.

And on= a final side note, I would also like to mention that the reciprocity shoul= d be able to be expressed without filling the places, as in the current:

{mi prami soi vo'a vo'e} for "I love something (and it loves me)"

The way I would do that with my proposal would be:

{mi s= oi vo'e prami}, where vo'e fills the place it represents.

(Once a= gain, if anyone actually likes this proposal, we would need a word other th= an {soi} to use.)

mu'o mi'e djos

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Rc= Mlhi8Frp0J.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_301_29564695.1345315941526--