Re: place switching cmavo...

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

"Trevor C. Hill" <trevor@AMON-RA.RES.CMU.EDU> pu cusku die:
> I have an idea that i'd like to discuss regarding the 'se te ve xe'
> cmavo...  It seems to me that because the places are, for the most part,
> ordered by frequency of use, these words should simply take a certain
> place (x2 for se) and put it at the front, leaving the other places in
> their original order...
>
> I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on this... I've been thinking
> about this quite a lot and it seems to me that this approach is really
> better for practical use.....  feel free to blast me if i'm wrong though

I half agree. The bit I disagree with is that the function of SE
should be altered. That would create great havoc - people have
learnt the old SE and have written texts with it. But I agree that
there is functional pressure in favour of cmavo that create the
orders:

                     x2 x3 x4 x5 x1
  x3 x1 x2 x4 x5     x3 x4 x5 x1 x2
  x4 x1 x2 x3 x5     x4 x5 x1 x2 x3
  x5 x1 x2 x3 x4

- That is, I think there's a utilitatian justification for an
extra 6 cmavo.

All these orders can be created ny combinations of SE, but they
are impossible to calculate amd one must simply work out all the
combinations and memorize the useful ones. And even then it's
likely one's reader will give up if they don't happen to have
memorized the compound SE.

We already have

 se  x2 x1 x3 x4 x5
 te  x3 x2 x1 x4 x5
 ve  x4 x2 x3 x1 x5
 xe  x5 x2 x3 x4 x5

If the first sumti is marked with a FA you get the orders

 INITIAL     FOLLOWING    SUBSEQUENT
 FA-TAGGED   UNTAGGED     MUST BE TAGGED
 fe-x2       x3 x4 x5 ... fa-x1
 fi-x3       x4 x5 ...... fa-x1, fe-x2
 fo-x4       x5 ......... fa-x1, fe-x2, fi-x3
 fu-x5       ............ fa-x1, f2-x2, fi-x3, fo-x4

So basically on the whole FA is useful only if you either
wish to omit the first n sumti, or if you want to FA-tag
every sumti.

coo, mie and