Message-Id: To: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) From: VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi Date: 23 Jun 93 16:39:31 EET DST Subject: Re: Indicator contour modifiers Cc: 91909372@bradford.ac.uk, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au Priority: normal X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 > Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 02:23:51 EDT > From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) > or after. I like this part. What I'm not sure is whether it is worth > 5 cmavo to replace the existing 2. If the number can be condensed, I might > be more willing to support it; e.g. > xu'a = default = current scope > xu'anai = transient feeling, no effective scope > xu'acai = global scope (i.e. I generally feel this way all the time, but > I'm only happening to mention it here. > > I guess actually the neutral would be xu'acu'i, and would normally never > be stated, so xu'a could mean a longer than current context, but unspecified > scope. > > Then xu'e means emotion starts, and xu'enai means emotion ends, as of the > current context (or as modified by the xu'a value). > > If this seems to fit what you are proposing, we thus cover all of the > possibilities of the current system, and then some, with no additional > cmavo. I have only a few minutes available at the moment and I want to think through all the implications before commenting more thoroughly. I think, however, that accepting a slight loss of flexibility we could reduce the required number of cmavo. The question is, however, what is the minimum number which gives a reasonable flexibility without requiring altogether too long cmavo structures? We are trying to avoid unnecessary use of logic in the system - that's the whole point of it. The modifiers ought to be as intuitive as possible - preferably with easily memorizable combinations, nobody will be able to use a system which requires concatenating 4 - 5 modifiers on the fly or taking into account the effect of bracketing. Veijo ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi