| In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: You can't get rid of this imprecision without either (i) formulating rules Well, it is nice to agree with And from time to time; it is a waste of energy. This was clear early on, but y'all kept at it and I tried to keep up, though all the wanderings to half a dozen (probably more) other points and back. You don't want a leaky {ka} (or any other leaky concepts -- well actually you want them all leaky but you want to pretend otherwise) but you don't want rules to keep them from being leaky (part of the evidence for the above parenthesis). As answer to the first part, I gave you a set of rules, based on your proposals -- incororating the best of the lot and them working to maximize efficiency and simplicity. Despite what And says, this set gives shorter forms than those using {si'o} and involves no conflicts. The main objection is to the first-{ce'u} abbreviation for an all {ce'u} form (at a glance, the only part anyone has actually thought through). That is quite detachable, though it is the best compromise in the given system (and, after all, the all {ce'u} form is the basic one in the language). If we only need that form occasionally, no much will be lost by writing in all the {ce'u}. So what about the rest, which are just a compliation of your suggestions? I suspect that y'all will reject them, but it would be nice to see some reasons given -- to go into the record, so that the next time this comes up we can say early on "This is a waste, we don't really want precision." |