Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 05:47:17 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199502061047.AA04169@access3.digex.net> Subject: Re: jorne X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 6 05:47:24 1995 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab >Your description of your objections makes it sound like they are in >fact to the former (deriving new selbri by deleting places), in which >case I don't share your objections. But if they really are to the >actual device of {ziho} to mark deletion of a place, I am inclined >to agree with you. My vague recollections of the debate on {ziho} >(originally, {xo'e}, I distantly recall) were that they focused >on the semantics of deleting places, but not on the syntactic means. >Were a different syntactic device employed, perhaps sumti-place >deletion would be more frequent and found less objectionable. >Personally I would favour 5 cmavo in SE meaning "delete x1/x2/x4/x4/x5", >or something similar that wouldn't require extra cmavo, such that >the deletion of a sumti-place is indicated by modification of the >selbri rather than by filling the deleted place. I think that would >make more apparent the lujvo-creating function of ziho. Ok, given your analysis, I don't much like deriving new selbri by deleting placess AND I don't like the specific implementation using zi'o. Your SE alternative makes some sense, but there isn't the demand to warrant 5 cmavo in tight cmavo space, and the logical altenrative - one cmavo (like zi'o) and a subscript isn't too zZipfean. Before zi'o I got along fine with "zo'e" in the 'deleted' places, since rarely is the point to ASSERT the irrelevance of the place, which is what zi'o seems to do. I would make a lujvo like plutyclaxuklama if I wanted klama without x4 (Ithink maybe something like this came up maybe once or twice in several years of trying to use the language, so it isn't exactly a frequently used issue when you aren't focussing on the place deletion.) lojbab