WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Aspect


arj:
> 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.

The form {xa'o} has the advantage that it was first proposed in 1993,
so it has some history behind it and many people already recognize it.
It is also one of the very few unofficial cmavo that actually gets used.
Personally, I don't have a problem with giving it a new form, but it
seems that the xVV space is pointless then: if some xVV cmavo is successful
and gets used, it has no chance of becoming official under the form that
people recognize it? If that is how things work, it is much better
when proposing an experimental cmavo to not use a xVV form, just in case
the cmavo is successful. (In fact, that's what people tend to do now it
would seem, for example with {mu'ei} which is another of the very few
that get used.)

rlpowell:
> 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.

I'm probably missing something on the philosophy of the experimental
space. What is the correct way to use it? Is CVVV space different from
xVV space in this respect?

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/