Re: My last of ZAhO , sumti places

[Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la veion cusku di'e
>
> I hope to be forgiven still one posting on this theme.
> I sincerely hope that my ponderings about the sumti places
> do not start a YAET (yet another endless thread).
>
Well, all good things must come to an end. But why cut it short
prematurely? I apologize if people get tired of long threads, but
I assure you that I'm learning a lot from your ponderings, even if
I seem to disagree with everything you say :)

On the sumti thing, I think we agree that the sumti places that are not
part of the definition, are at least deemphasized with respect to those
that are, even if these last are left vacant.

On the space sumti tcita, we also seem to basically agree.

On the ZAhO tcita, we don't like the same thing.

<selbri> <tag> <sumti> has roughly the meaning of <tag> <selbri>, for
all <tag>s except those that contain ZAhOs. In this case, the <tag> is
instead attatched to the selbri inside the sumti.

I understand that the meaning of "ba'o" under this interpretation is
elegant. Maybe that of "pu'o" as well, although I haven't seen many
examples. All other ZAhOs are either equally or more elegant with the
simpler rule. (I think "za'o" under the current rule is particularly bad.)

I accept the argument that tradition may require to keep their meanings
as they are, but I have not been convinced that there is any more
fundamental reason than that to do so.

co'o mi'e xorxes