Not quite a proposal, but definitely mad...

[Matthew Faupel <matthew@CPDAPO.TELE.NOKIA.FI>]

All of the following is to be taken with a large dose of salt and should
probably be marked semi-zo'o.

MF: How about:
MF:
MF:     mi paroi tcidu ba'o lenu no'a     I read once again

JL: I would translate the last one as: "I read only once after having read
JL: only once."

As Jorge (implicitly) points out, "no'a" is recursive.  I would guess that
the full translation of the above would actually be "I read only once after
having read only once, after having read only once... etc.".  Has this
recursiveness ever been found useful?  Would a more appropriate definition
of the semantics of "no'a" (and "nei") be "the outer (current) bridi, with
no'a (nei) replaced by some null value that renders any sumti containing
no'a (nei) as equivalent to zo'e"?  Is this any more useful?  Should this be
formalised as a mad proposal?

Second not quite proposal.  Following Jorge's seemingly sensible suggestion
of having an equivalent to roi as mei is to moi, how about a remapping as
follows:

    nei         ->      nau (unused becomes current bridi)
    rei         ->      nei (current bridi becomes hex digit E)
    new thing   ->      rei (hex digit E becomes new tense thing)

We could of course use "nau" for the new tense saving all this remapping,
but given that (I suspect) "nei" and "rei" are not used outside of the
grammatical papers describing their use, the remapping would probably not be
costly and would end up with rei/roi nicely paired with mei/moi.  "nei" is
suggested for hex digit E instead of "nau" to preserve the vowel sound.

A variation of this suggestion is to use one of the free CV'V cmavo for the
current bridi pro-bridi.  It seems a waste to use a CVV cmavo for a
relatively unused word...

Cheers,


Matthew