Re: self-descriptions?

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

And:
> > I agree. I would also prefer that V-initial not be singled out like
> > that.
> Do we know why it is? A relic of some ancient Brownian predilection?

Something to do with the Loglan imperative, I think.

> xe xi pa nu   = nu xi pa    = nu
> se nu         = nu xi re   (= su'uxipa = fa'a'a)
> te nu         = nu xi ci   (= su'uxire = fe'e'e)
> ve nu         = nu xi vo   (= su'uxici = fi'i'i)
> xe nu         = nu xi mu   (= su'uxivo = fo'o'o)
> xe xi xa nu   = nu xi xa   (= su'uximu = fu'u'u)
>
> i.e. the place structure of nu broda is the same as of nunbroda.
>
> This would placate me, and since it requires no change to the
> current syntax, and but little undoing of existing semantics,
> I think I might adopt it.

That works for me. {nu} doesn't have defined x2, x3, etc, so it
seems perfectly fine to assume that that is what you get upon
SE conversion.

Jorge