WikiDiscuss

On 5/16/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> the language as a BAI. At some point — I don't
> much care when, though it was after whenever my
> paper list was made up — a number of BAI were
> added on the basis — as far as I can tell — of
> that second sense of being in the language. It
> may be that some few of these have been used (my
> list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
> establish the pattern). The rest seem merely to
> be an excresence.

I agree most BAIs are an excresence, but we have to define them
because they are a part of the official language.

> > Not sure what you mean by that. There are
> > 1400 or so gismu in the language.
>
> But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.

Yes, but they are not official gismu.

> > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
> > experimental
> > space. They are a standard part of the official
> > cmavo,
> > all of which need defining.
>
> No, they need editing if they are already in, and
> a note about how to get them back in if a need
> for them arises,

It's easier to add than to remove, and even adding anything
at this point is extremely difficult.

> > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular
> > construction for
> > "not prevented by/in spite of".
> >
> But the official line does not contain {to'e},
> nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it is
> regular presupposes that there are rules, which
> is not obviously the case.

It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or perhaps I'm just delusional?

mu'o mi'e xorxes