Re: BPFK Section: Aspect
> arj:
> > > I'm a little surprised that you didn't include any of the various complements
> > > to za'o that have been proposed (starting to early, starting too late, ending
> > > too early, probabyl others). Any particular reason?
> >
> > I've now added xa'o (occuring too early).
>
> I'm not entirely against adding a new cmavo to fill a perceived gap. But assigning such a cmavo to the xVV series essentially overturns the age-old rule that says that that series should be perpetually reserved for experimental cmavo.
I'm annoyed with myself that I didn't notice that.
> I don't think we should do that lightly.
We most certainly should not.
> For that reason only, I'm voting against this for the moment. It might be a good idea to consider either a) taking one of the precious few unsassigned "main namespace" cmavo forms for it, or b) abandoning the "already" aspect altogether.
I'd rather the former than the latter; asymmetry annoys me.
I want to make it clear that I have nothing *against* opening up a section of experimental cmavo space. It's not my preference at this time, but I have nothing against it in principle.
- However*, as jatna I must insist that any proposal that does so make it clear that this is occuring, in nice big letters, including how much of the experimental space you are proposing to allocate for non-experimental use.
-Robin