Message-Id: <199311200708.AA13386@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Sat, 20 Nov 1993 02:07:27 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: proposal for new member of SE
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

An argument based on zipfean principles must ipso facto be based on
frequency of usage demanding a short form, or infrequency of usage
demanding a long form.  Since there are as far as I know, no Lojban
lujvo with more than 5 places, there is 0 frequency of use, and it is
therefore difficult to argue for any but the longest plausible form.

Thus, there IS nothing wrong with "zei".  Furthermore, since we don't
want to have lujvo frequenntly to have more than 5 places (one argument
being the question of whether the human linguistic capability is
sufficient to juggle that many arguments at once - the theory is that 7
concepts is a typical limit, and 5 sumti, and a selbri don't leave you
much for modals, tenses, BAI-tagged sumti, discursives and attitudinals,
etc.), we don't want to put high priority on adding a capability that
will encourage something we think should be avoided.

I will note that JCB's version of the language does have a 'sumti
rotation' operator, though it is not of a "se" nature.  We decided it
wasn't really needed or useful, given the existence of FA tags.

The only place you really would need a SE like construct is when you
can't use FA tags, as for example in making a description.  Thus you are
really seeking a construct to enable descriptive sumti built off of the
6+th place of some theoretical lujvo.  Since such high numbered places
are often the most abstract and least used in descriptions.  So you have
even lower usage to justify the hypothetical need for this word.

But if you insist, you can always use an xVV experimental word.

lojbab