On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jacob Errington
<nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jacob Errington
<nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
..I propose something far more vague, like {ju'e}....
Your proposal is what it currently is. :)
Haha, although to be honest, practically no one (talking about IRC usage here) uses double FA, so I wouldn't quite call it "what it currently is". Also, I didn't think that any official decisions had been made with regards to double FA. If you can provide a link to a record of the decision, that'd be really great.
Specifically because I am tired, I don't really care all that much, and I don't think it matters mainly due to it's lack of use, I'm not going to.
I will tell you that this has come up before, was discussed, and it was determined that "(FA) <sumti> FA <sumti>" is equivalent to "(FA) <sumti> ju'e <sumti>", and that I'm fairly certain the discussion is in the Google Group archives- although it is possible that the discussion predates the move to GG, I doubt it does. It's also more likely to be in the main group than the beginners.