zi'oi: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{se inspekte/en}}an obsolete proposal for a cmavo '''zi'oi'''. | |||
=Discussion= | |||
*[[And Rosta]]: | |||
**Although '''zi'oi''' doesn't specify which argument places are annulled, this can easily be guessed at by interlocutors. The rationale for this is that it should be easier to annull excess argument places without calling attention to them by filling them with '''zi'o'''. My idea is that if '''zi'oi''' were used scrupulously it would serve to indicate which gismu have a surfeit of sumti places and should be pruned. If it was then felt that usage had pruned the superfective places, with a concomitant change in the official definition, then texts written using '''zi'oi''' could easily be edited to delete '''zi'oi'''s. | |||
***[[John Cowan]]: | |||
And | ****IIRC we actually considered this solution, but abandoned it in favor of the sumti-based '''zi'o'''. | ||
*****[[And Rosta]]: | |||
******The '''zi'o''' solution has the virtue of being explicit, and the vice of being a fatally counterintuitive method of achieving its primary aim, which is to axe sumti places that oughtn't to have been there in the first place. | |||
*[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]: | |||
**I don't think that any zihooid solution to the problem of unwanted places is going to work. (For further discussion, see [[methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti]]). Personally, I find myself happy to use rafsi '''zil''', but unhappy to use '''zi'o''', because it draws attention to places that one wants to neglect. Since '''zi'oi''' doesn't fix that underlying problem, I'll deem its proposal obsolete. | |||
[[ | |||
[[ | |||
[[ | |||
Latest revision as of 18:30, 15 November 2014
 | The formatting of this page has been checked for following the guidelines of le uitki. |
an obsolete proposal for a cmavo zi'oi.
Discussion
- And Rosta:
- Although zi'oi doesn't specify which argument places are annulled, this can easily be guessed at by interlocutors. The rationale for this is that it should be easier to annull excess argument places without calling attention to them by filling them with zi'o. My idea is that if zi'oi were used scrupulously it would serve to indicate which gismu have a surfeit of sumti places and should be pruned. If it was then felt that usage had pruned the superfective places, with a concomitant change in the official definition, then texts written using zi'oi could easily be edited to delete zi'ois.
- John Cowan:
- IIRC we actually considered this solution, but abandoned it in favor of the sumti-based zi'o.
- And Rosta:
- The zi'o solution has the virtue of being explicit, and the vice of being a fatally counterintuitive method of achieving its primary aim, which is to axe sumti places that oughtn't to have been there in the first place.
- And Rosta:
- IIRC we actually considered this solution, but abandoned it in favor of the sumti-based zi'o.
- John Cowan:
- Although zi'oi doesn't specify which argument places are annulled, this can easily be guessed at by interlocutors. The rationale for this is that it should be easier to annull excess argument places without calling attention to them by filling them with zi'o. My idea is that if zi'oi were used scrupulously it would serve to indicate which gismu have a surfeit of sumti places and should be pruned. If it was then felt that usage had pruned the superfective places, with a concomitant change in the official definition, then texts written using zi'oi could easily be edited to delete zi'ois.
- And Rosta:
- I don't think that any zihooid solution to the problem of unwanted places is going to work. (For further discussion, see methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti). Personally, I find myself happy to use rafsi zil, but unhappy to use zi'o, because it draws attention to places that one wants to neglect. Since zi'oi doesn't fix that underlying problem, I'll deem its proposal obsolete.