From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 01 15:33:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 22:33:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 39245 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 21:12:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 21:12:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 21:12:26 -0000 Received: from m211-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.211] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15S32l-0005Vi-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 21:56:40 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] revised experimental cmavo proposals Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > I'm not sure whether having these in LA entails that /da'ai/ and > > /ko'ai/ can't occur within cmevla (which is not a particularly > > desirable consequence), > > It does not. > > It does entail that they must be separated from the cmevla by a pause. Good. By 'pause', I understand /./, = [?]. > > {zi'oi} SE: indicates that one or more argument places are annulled. > > IIRC we actually considered this solution, but abandoned it in favor > of the sumti-based zi'o. The zi'o solution has the virtue of being explicit, and the vice of being a fatally counterintuitive method of achieving its primary aim, which is to axe sumti places that oughtn't to have been there in the first place. > > Although zi'oi doesn't specify which argument places are annulled, this > > can easily be guessed at by interlocutors. > > > > The rationale for this is that it should be easier to annull excess > > argument places without calling attention to them by filling them > > with zi'o. > > One approach would be to have a conventional indicator that means > "Any unfilled places are zi'o"; contextual places would then > require explicit zo'e. My idea is that if zi'oi were used scrupulously it would serve to indicate which gismu have a surfeit of sumti places and should be pruned. If it was then felt that usage had pruned the superfective places, with a concomitant change in the official definition, then texts written using zi'oi could easily be edited to delete {zi'oi}s. --And.