Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn Message-Id: <9107310255.AA22264@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Cc: nsn@ee.mu.OZ.AU Subject: Yes, Mark, you're always right... %^) Organisation: Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Melbourne Smiley-Convention: %^) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 12:55:34 +1000 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jul 30 23:46:45 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn From: Mark Shoulson Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 10:14:52 EDT Subject: Two queries >I suspect the best answer is simply to use >subscripting: {ke'axipa} is innermost or just {ke'a}, the next one out is >{ke'axire} and so on. This sound good? Already suggested? Probably not, but this seems the default way out of such messses in our language. >I propose that multiple SE be acceptable (yes, >I know it needn't be a proposition), under a particular circumstance: that >it be of form {setese}. That is, one conversion, then another, then the >first again. This amounts to swapping any two places (not just one with >first), and the places are easily identifiable. I think this can make >things much easier for word-order, and really isn't too tough to follow. I came up with this independently (I guess we were reading the same page in the lessons...), but so far have decided against it: anything that makes me have to stop and count is countercommunicative. Hanging {fi} and {fo} aren't much better, admittedly. As Bob is likely to tell you, try it and see if anyone likes it. Prejudging these things is usually impossible. Nick.