Re: TECH: empathy in attitudinals (proposal)

[Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>]

John Cowan stood up, stood up some more, and spoke thus:

The empathy attitudinal is something whose time has come: do it, John,
do it!

As for an attitudinal: would {mi'i} be too confusing, as a reminder of
{mi}? Or {do'i} for that matter as a variant of {do}?

I remind Colin that {xe'e} is already taken (the list of Xv'v cmavo I posted
a while back. In fact, John, isn't it worth looking through them, and
selecting what should go into the canon?) {jaido'e} will do, as Mark
pointed out, for the proposed {xe'e}, and the complications he draws
attention to do give me pause...

"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*