[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> Seems that a lot of use of mu'ei is either going to be ro or su'o
> (probably mostly the former).
followed by so'e. But also {no}, too.
> What about making a pair of cmavo
> in selma'o TAhE (roi doesn't allow having a default for the number)
> which do that? If the one for ro could be single syllable it would
> be all the better: perhaps 'xau'. Not sure if the one for su'o is
> as useful, and as such if it's even worth creating I'd definitely
> not recommend a xVV for it
>
> (note that doing as such would make for counterfactual conditionals
> taking no more syllables than indicative ones: mi xaugi xagji gi
> citka vs. mi ganai xagji gi citka)
I have no real objections. But my preference would be (i) to define
TAhE for ro/su'o mu'ei/ba'oi at minimum and (ii) put them in CVVV
space.
I personally disapprove of the process of trying to bag the few
remaining monosyllabic cmavo for 'useful' functions, because it
amounts to putting a sticking plaster on a much deeper problem
that is not going to be significantly ameliorated by the mere
judicious assignment of the remaining monosyllabic cmavo. (That
deeper problem, which I've talked about in other postings to
jboske and the wiki, is that there is no mechanism for zipfean
shortening of high-frequency cmavo, nor even for optimizing
the assignment of the shortest cmavo to those with the highest
frequency).
--And.