In a message dated 10/31/2001 9:58:17 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
I had in mind 31245. Which is setese = tesete. Is it? 12345 se=> 21345 te => 31245 (what wanted) te => 13245 (leave of the first se) 12345 te => 32145 se => 23145 te => 13245 ( the same but not what is wanted -- needs a se in front as I had it) se => 31245 <So anyway, yes, learning "setese" as a unit might in the end be the simplest option. I have in fact used setese, but I don't think it's fair to inflict it on people; unless they've learnt it as a unit, which they won't have, because nobody else uses it, they'll have to spend two minutes working it out.> I seem to recall from that Loglanist paper that there are patterns to these things. Whether that would make learning them easier -- or reading them when you come across a new one -- I am unsure. As I said, this was a part of the argument for FA and since them most of the SE-shuffles have been moot. The work in sumti bridi might revive some of it, but I suspect -- your esthetic notwithstanding -- that the mixed SE-FA will carry the day. (or the other pattern that was proposed way be then --a simple list of places in order: translated into modern terms as near as I can recall, the standard order would be xa'e'i'o'u -- but other schemes are \possible and perhaps desireable.) |