[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 06:34 AM 1/9/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > >Nick Nicholas scripsit: > > > > > The BPFK (if I ever get it started) considers what gets added to the > > > CLL prescription. Founder intent is of interest, but is not decisive, > > > and is assuredly not canonical. tu'o = mo'ezo'e is not in the CLL > > > prescription. And I for one don't want it there either. > > > >I agree. This implies fixing the ma'oste. > > Why is the ma'oste broken? There is no need to add to the CLL > prescription; it merely is silent on the elliptical usages of tu'o as it is > on multitudinous other things. > > Furthermore there is usage history and a clear need for an elliptical > digit, which tu'o was used for (and mo'ezo'e cannot be used as a digit). > > If it is agreed that tu'o cannot overlap both zi'o and zo'e (I remain > unconvinced of this) I don't find such an ambiguity acceptable at all. , then this is a clear case for adding a new cmavo, in > which case the CLL usage would justify giving tu'o the zi'o interpretation > (though I don't think it requires a zi'o interpretation to make sense as a > null operand, it is consistent with same to do so), but the case has to be > made that tu'o needs that specific a definition, ESPECIALLY in light of the > fact that I don't think we have any other cmavo that are simple > abbreviations for a two-cmavo string (which seems like a waste of cmavo to > me), so it seem clear that there was no INTENT that tu'o mean something so > simple. Didn't you recently note that tu'o can grammatically be used in cases where mo'ezi'o can't go? -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();