Message-Id: <m0plL2L-0000R4C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 28 Mar 1994 12:23:15 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Not quite a proposal, but definitely mad...
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1633
Lines: 38

la matius cusku di'e

> Would a more appropriate definition
> of the semantics of "no'a" (and "nei") be "the outer (current) bridi, with
> no'a (nei) replaced by some null value that renders any sumti containing
> no'a (nei) as equivalent to zo'e"?  Is this any more useful?  Should this be
> formalised as a mad proposal?

I think this is how I was interpreting it already, but the tense of the outer
bridi is kept, unless replaced with a new explicit tense.

> Second not quite proposal.  Following Jorge's seemingly sensible suggestion
> of having an equivalent to roi as mei is to moi,

Actually, as moi is to mei, that's why I said that the vowels didn't help.

[reshuffling suggestion omitted]

{nau} is already in use, although it doesn't appear on the lists yet. It belongs
to selmaho CUhE, and means "absolute here and now", if I'm not mistaken.

There are no CVV monosylables left, unfortunately. A good choice for
the new ROI would be {re'u}, which begins with "r", like {roi}, and has
a good mnemonic: {krefu}, and is currently unassigned!

> A variation of this suggestion is to use one of the free CV'V cmavo for the
> current bridi pro-bridi.  It seems a waste to use a CVV cmavo for a
> relatively unused word...

I completely agree with you, but I'm afraid it won't be easy to kick anyone
out of CVV space. I think there are a good number that should have never been
put there in the first place: nei, dei, dai, most BAIs, lau, zai, pai, and
I'm probably forgetting some.

(Another advantage of your suggestion would be the avoidance of the possible
cause of confusion between the two digits {re} and {rei}.)

Jorge