On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:36:54AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > * Usage overwhelmingly supports it; pretty much all prior usage
> > of so'V would be invalidated.
>
> The first clause may be true, but the second is surely false. Nothing
> prevents "so'a" from meaning "all but an insignificant number" in particular
> cases. I only object to drawing rigorous conclusions that this relationship
> always holds.
Do they have to be evenly spaced (I'm pretty sure the book says
they don't)? It does seem like most usage of these assume that,
for example, {so'o ckiku vi selstu le dertu} (from nuntalyli'u)
doesn't mean that there are several million keys here (or whatever
huge number would be needed to have a so'o portion of lo'i ro ckiku).
If they don't have to be evenly spaced, then what's the difference
between viewing them as a single scale or viewing them as having
'different' meaning for the so'[ae] vs. so'[iou] ones? Our scale
would essentially be the same thing:
|****-*****--************ ... ******-******--|
no so'u so'o so'i so'e so'a ro
seems to be what everyone's talking about, continuous scale or no...
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00150.pgp
Description: PGP signature