[lojban] tanru ordering and a cmavo proposal

[Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>]

This proposal is about {co}. There are basically two orders of seltau, tertau, sumti-of-seltau, and sumti-of-tertau that are allowed. These are:
[ST] S SS T ST. No {co} needed.
[ST] T ST S SS. {co} needed.

The following case came up on IRC last night and is not possible at the moment:
[ST] T S SS ST
The problem is that once you use {co}, any sumti you throw out there afterwards are SS automatically. In essence this is basically like being trapped in a NU, where all the sumti you say get sucked up into the NU until {kei} or something that forces it like {cu} comes up. Accordingly, why should {co} not have a terminator? Have a terminator like {co'ai}, and then you have equivalences like:

ko'a broda co brode ko'e ko'i co'ai ko'o == ko'a brode be ko'e bei broda ko'i

Formally:
Proposal: {co'ai}. Terminator for {co}. When supplied, sumti that follow it are considered to be sumti of the tertau, rather than sumti of the seltau. 

My only issue that I haven't carefully looked over (this actually just came to mind) is how this interacts with multiple {co}. 

mu'o mi'e .latros.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.