Robin's gadri Proposal
Eimi, please sign off your posts. Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:31:20PM -0700, Eimi wrote:
> Re: Robin's gadri Proposal A few questions/comments about the
> proposal. First of all, you define things in terms of a completely
> generic "LX" gadri. Is it your intention that such a thing be
> created,
Absolutely not.
> Similarly, is it possible to leave an axis unspecified, to be glorked
> from context, or are they all always specified?
The default for at least some of the axes is "cu'i", aka unspecified.
Well, OK, that's not *quite* unspecified, but it's basically the same
thing.
> That is, if a gadri has defaults for all the axes, then is it possible
> for glorking to decide that one really doesn't mean that, instead of
> explicitly mentioning it. (Example: If we're talking about mythology,
> do I have to use lo da'i pavyseljirna, or can I just say lo
> pavyseljirna without implying that I believe they actually exist).
If we're talking about mythology, I see no problem, although I would
expect a listener coming in in the middle to be quite surpised at you
talking about "da poi pavyseljirna", which is what lo actually means.
> I do approve of the change to da'i and je'u for nonexistance and
> veradicality, but make sure you update the definitions at the top of
> the page to match.
Fixed. Thank you.
> And finally, I think .o'avu'enai (as close to hubris as I can get)
> that you've got the issue of veradicality slightly wrong with respect
> to le. I think the je'u an je'unai you have defined are very useful,
> but the real definition of le would be more je'ucu'i:
You are *absolutely* correct. Fixed.
-Robin