Re: response to Steven Belknap on language baselines and stability (long)

[Scott Brickner <sjb@UNIVERSE.DIGEX.NET>]

Logical Language Group writes:
>Because the grammar of whatever is non-standard is as unrestricted as the
>capability of non-standardness, there is no cmavo that could unfailingly
>cover the territory.  za'e is pretty restricted and does not solve any
>grammar problems.

Sure, but I'd bet one could be devised which would cover *most* of the
territory.  The rest could be managed with lo'u/le'u (which could take
the subscript describing the variant, if needed).

I'd also bet that the variants which *can't* be expressed with something
like za'e, but in UI, would never be accepted into the language, anyway.