Subject: RE: [lojban] revised experimental cmavo proposals

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:11:35 +0100

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.