On 29 Sep 2014 01:40, "Pierre Abbat" <phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:03:18 selpa'i wrote:
> > As for old-{voi}, I agree it's utterly useless.
>
> I don't think so. It has its place, though I don't see much use for it. {lo
> rangutano cu me lo remsmismani voi se kerfa lo xunre bunre} allows an ape to
> still be an orangutan even if it's albino.
On further consideration, I agree it's not useless. But
(1) For every relative, noi, poi, ne, pe, no'u, po'u (that list from memory -- hope it's right) a nonveridical counterpart would be at least as useful as voi--poi is.
(2) It's nonveridical noi that would figure in a logical expansion of le and English definite descriptions, so is a candidate for usefulest.
Selpa'i has suggested a UI for (non)veridicality. The snag with that is that you'd not want the unmarked default to be "unspecified veridicality", and usually you'd want the unmarked default to be Veridical, but sometimes, specifically when the phrase has an identificatory function, you want the unmarked default to be Nonveridical. So this leads me to think that maybe better than a UI would be a nonveridical poi'i, or maybe a nonveridical poi'i that includes co'e in its meaning. You could even use /voi/ for that, tho not at the cost of depriving poi'i of a shorter allomorph.
I'm kind of brainstorming here, not presenting a decidedly optimal change.
--And.
--