Re: jorne

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

>Your description of your objections makes it sound like they are in
>fact to the former (deriving new selbri by deleting places), in which
>case I don't share your objections. But if they really are to the
>actual device of {ziho} to mark deletion of a place, I am inclined
>to agree with you. My vague recollections of the debate on {ziho}
>(originally, {xo'e}, I distantly recall) were that they focused
>on the semantics of deleting places, but not on the syntactic means.
>Were a different syntactic device employed, perhaps sumti-place
>deletion would be more frequent and found less objectionable.
>Personally I would favour 5 cmavo in SE meaning "delete x1/x2/x4/x4/x5",
>or something similar that wouldn't require extra cmavo, such that
>the deletion of a sumti-place is indicated by modification of the
>selbri rather than by filling the deleted place. I think that would
>make more apparent the lujvo-creating function of ziho.


Ok, given your analysis, I don't much like deriving new selbri by deleting
placess AND I don't like the specific implementation using zi'o.  Your
SE alternative makes some sense, but there isn't the demand to warrant

5 cmavo in tight cmavo space, and the logical altenrative - one cmavo (like
zi'o) and a subscript isn't too zZipfean.  Before zi'o I got along
fine with "zo'e" in the 'deleted' places, since rarely is the point to ASSERT
the irrelevance of the place, which is what zi'o seems to do.  I would
make a lujvo like plutyclaxuklama if I wanted klama without x4 (Ithink maybe
something like this came up maybe once or twice in several years of trying
to use the language, so it isn't exactly a frequently used issue when you 
aren't focussing on the place deletion.)

lojbab