Hal,
I'm all in favor of it. For each convention that is invented for diagramming,
> the question to be asked is how does it instruct the viewer and clarify the
> structure?
>
There are hundreds of selma'o, which is too many to come up with a unique diagramming
> method for each one. I would recommend that we come up with diagramming methods
> for these more general categories of cmavo instead:
- Abstracts - Attitudinals - Connectives - Descriptors - Discursives
> - Keyboard (alphanumeric, {ro}, verbal punctuation, shifts, etc.)
> - Math expressions - Modals - Prosumti/bridi - Qualifiers (NAI, LAhE, NA, NAhE, LUhU)
> - Relativizers (clause/phrase) - Sentence Structure (TUhE, FA, TUhU, NUhI,
> FAhO, CEhE, FUhE, ZEI, ad infinitum)
> - Tenses - Vocatives
Perhaps even some of these can share a diagramming method, such as vocatives and attitudinals.
-epkat
Matt,
You are far more knowledgeable than I am, as I don't even understand any more than
half that list.
To work on this project might be a learning experience for me.
I would suggest we start with the simplest, most common forms.
Are you interested in pursuing this together? Should we talk off-list
so as not to subject others to it?
Cheers,
Hal