| In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: My attempt to make sense (in my eyes) of pc's latest proposal. Yeah, that what I think too. <> I still haven't seen any useful sentences involving more than 2 > {ce'u}s. unfortunately that doesn't tell us much. If people understood when they need ce'u and if they never elided it, then you would have seen it. And in discussions of, say, definitional issues (e.g. "Is daterape rape?") you'd get a lot of all-ce'us> I think so, too, but it is hard to prove. <Yes. pc appears to be of the opinion that this is the overall best compromise solution. I've come round to the view that ka is unsalvageable.> Since I do think that was the best compromise possible but want to keep {ka} generally, I have withdrawn that proposal. If we find we use a lot of {ce'u}, we will find something better, at least in the sense of not riling people. <I think I'd go for the experimental cmavo for abstracting selbri, plus a hardcore glorkbog ka to which a Government Health Warning is attached. There doesn't seem much point in formalizing conventions for ka; they'd be leaky and not very robust or effectual in making current usage that much less vague.> Well, I still think that the rest of my summary deserves a try. And then yes we can go back to where we want to be. |