Message-Id: <199208250530.AA25115@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan), lojbab@grebyn.com,
        C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk, shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: your mail 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 15:30:09 +1000
From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU
Content-Length: 925
Lines: 24

>Nick writes:
>> 2. I'd still like {banli} to keep {bal} ({ba'i} can stay or go. Otherwise OK.
>Agreed.  I think that "balji" doesn't deserve a rafsi at all

Bingo

>> >24.  NSN took an interesting position on this one.  
>I'm beginning to move my position, and think that Nick is absolutely right.
>Even though >we< don't want to label things as male or female, all too many
>cultures >do< want to, and need to.

If symmetry is a concern, and {nalci} *must* have a rafsi and/or {natmi} is
too sacred to lose {nai}, then... I dunno. I doubt nalci can get a CVC tho.
Incidentally, need the cmavo {nai} have a rafsi?

>> 51.  This data still doesn't support a rafsi for tamji:
>I support the proposal here against Nick, on the general grounds of "give 'em
>all a rafsi if you can".
I won't insist.

>> >114.
>> give it don; will be used word initial, so deserves smooth hyphening
>I think donri needs it more.
Oh I forgot. OK.