Re: Indicator contour modifiers

[VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi]

> Date:          Wed, 23 Jun 93 02:23:51 EDT
> From:          lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)

> or after.  I like this part.  What I'm not sure is whether it is worth
> 5 cmavo to replace the existing 2.  If the number can be condensed, I might
> be more willing to support it; e.g.
> xu'a = default = current scope
> xu'anai = transient feeling, no effective scope
> xu'acai = global scope (i.e. I generally feel this way all the time, but
>    I'm only happening to mention it here.
>
> I guess actually the neutral would be xu'acu'i, and would normally never
> be stated, so xu'a could mean a longer than current context, but unspecified
> scope.
>
> Then xu'e means emotion starts, and xu'enai means emotion ends, as of the
> current context (or as modified by the xu'a value).
>
> If this seems to fit what you are proposing, we thus cover all of the
> possibilities of the current system, and then some, with no additional
> cmavo.

   I have only a few minutes available at the moment and I want to
   think through all the implications before commenting more
   thoroughly. I think, however, that accepting a slight loss
   of flexibility we could reduce the required number of cmavo.
   The question is, however, what is the minimum number which gives
   a reasonable flexibility without requiring altogether too long
   cmavo structures? We are trying to avoid unnecessary use of
   logic in the system - that's the whole point of it. The modifiers
   ought to be as intuitive as possible - preferably with easily
   memorizable combinations, nobody will be able to use a system
   which requires concatenating 4 - 5 modifiers on the fly or
   taking into account the effect of bracketing.

      Veijo


------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi