Re: TECH: empathy in attitudinals (proposal)

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

> 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}?

mi zo'u .aucu'i

>
> 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...

I didn't bother to check on "xe'e" - I regard them as essentially short-term
experiments. If they go into the canon they won't be Xvv forms.

I've no objection to "jaido'e", but it doesn't do what I originally wanted
(*le xe'e tanru).
Mark's discussion on multiple roles is interesting, and opens some important
questions (actually, more distributivity issues).  I was taking it that
        *le xe'e tanru
could legitimately mean something like
        *le pa xe'e tanru ku jo'u le pa xe'e tanru
i.e. combining into one description two different things that could be
separately described as *le xe'e tanru.

I am not sure whether this is legitimate or not.
        le bersa
is permitted to mean
        le pa bersa be .abu. jo'u le pa bersa be .by li'o
i.e. the selgadri with ellipted tergismu can distribute over different sumti.

                mi'e kolin