Re: old gismu comments

[lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)]

No.  John compiled gobs and gobs of proposals into a list of changes that
he was proposing, and circulated that for comment, as input for me.  The set
of changes he listed and my own copies of the original proposals are what
I am now incorporating into the gi'uste, which otherwise was relatively
unchanged from a year ago or more.  I did not enter into the discussions
when Cowan posted, and did not even look at them till after I responded
to your comments, which apparently fed into his set.  I have some comments
that are independent of his accumulation too.

It turned out that I agree with 90% of his proposals; of the rest, I generally
have a specific reason for opposing the change, generally in favor of the
status quo, but almost invariably have added explanation to the gi'uste in
hopes of making it clearer why the places are the way they are.  The new
gi'uste is starting to get very wordy %^)

I will cc you in posting to him my responses on his proposals tonight.

Here are a couple more things I had for you today:

>>14. jgita/xagri:
>
>Yes.  Btw, is there a kosher metaphorical bridi for low/high in musical
>terms, apart from the unwieldy much-frequency? mutselsli/tolmutselsli.
>Not that *bad*, actually...
 
fast-tone short-tone   vs.
short-tone long-tone for durative differences
 
also possible use of cafne
 
Add the various possibilities to the lujvo lists, if possible - 1000
flowers forever.  Also, if you haven't been updating the list, I should
probably to my thing on the last year's worth of archives sometime
reasonably soon, and before we build up a supply of stuff using the new
rafsi.  I'm sure the ckafybarja stuff produced a goodly number of lujvo.
 
Note:  Nora thinks she has automatic lujvo updating program working.
Hence, it would seem worthwhile to, at some specific time, have you send
me the file, and I will return it to you ASAP in its new incarnation.
 
Please give me approximate status of your place structure paper work, and
when you think you would likely get it done given the plausible ranges
of priority you think it could be assigned.
 Likewise any further work you plan to do on lujvo place structures.  I will
presume among other things that they will need to be checked against the
new place structures - I may be able to paritally automate this to make it
easier, depending on how you are representing things (I haven't read your
paper or place structures at all yet, just glanced at the genral format
of the latter to see how I want ot add it to the dictioanry.)

lojbab