Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: SE-FA

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:25:29 EST

In a message dated 10/31/2001 9:58:17 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] 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

<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.)