From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 31 17:25:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 01:25:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 43629 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 01:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 01:25:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 01:25:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.a1.1d87eb9b (4324) for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:25:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:25:29 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: SE-FA To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a1.1d87eb9b.2911fe89_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_a1.1d87eb9b.2911fe89_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/31/2001 9:58:17 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Is it? 12345 se=> 21345 te => 31245 (what wanted) te => 13245 (leave of the first se) 12345 te => 32145 se => 23145 te => 13245 ( the same but not what is wanted -- needs a se in front as I had it) se => 31245 I seem to recall from that Loglanist paper that there are patterns to these things. Whether that would make learning them easier -- or reading them when you come across a new one -- I am unsure. As I said, this was a part of the argument for FA and since them most of the SE-shuffles have been moot. The work in sumti bridi might revive some of it, but I suspect -- your esthetic notwithstanding -- that the mixed SE-FA will carry the day. (or the other pattern that was proposed way be then --a simple list of places in order: translated into modern terms as near as I can recall, the standard order would be xa'e'i'o'u -- but other schemes are \possible and perhaps desireable.) --part1_a1.1d87eb9b.2911fe89_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/31/2001 9:58:17 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


I had in mind 31245. Which is setese = tesete.


Is it? 12345 se=> 21345 te => 31245 (what wanted) te => 13245 (leave of the first se)
12345 te => 32145 se => 23145 te => 13245 ( the same but not what is wanted -- needs a se in front as I had it) se => 31245

<So anyway, yes, learning
"setese" as a unit might in the end be the simplest option. I have in
fact used setese, but I don't think it's fair to inflict it on people; unless
they've learnt it as a unit, which they won't have, because nobody
else uses it, they'll have to spend two minutes working it out.>

I seem to recall from that Loglanist paper that there are patterns to these things.  Whether that would make learning them easier -- or reading them when you come across a new one -- I am unsure.  As I said, this was a part of the argument for FA and since them most of the SE-shuffles have been moot.  The work in sumti bridi might revive some of it, but I suspect -- your esthetic notwithstanding -- that the mixed SE-FA will carry the day. (or the other pattern that was proposed way be then --a simple list of places in order: translated into modern terms as near as I can recall, the standard order would be xa'e'i'o'u -- but other schemes are \possible and perhaps desireable.)
--part1_a1.1d87eb9b.2911fe89_boundary--