nacrga'au is not a cmavo. It does not work the same way as does, for
example, pa.

Comment #3: Re: Dissimilarity with PA cmavo

Wuzzy (Tue Feb 11 21:03:11 2014)

krtisfranks wrote: > nacrga'au is not a cmavo. It does not work the same way as does, for > example, pa. Correct, it is not a cmavo and does not work like “pa”. But this doesn’t mean you can’t use this valsi like a number. Example: “li ni'e nacrga'au”. <http://dag.github.io/cll/18/18/>

Comment #4: Re: Dissimilarity with PA cmavo Curtis W Franks (Fri Feb 14 00:11:59 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > nacrga'au is not a cmavo. It does not work the same way as does, for > > example, pa. > Correct, it is not a cmavo and does not work like “pa”. But this > doesn’t mean you can’t use this valsi like a number. > > Example: “li ni'e nacrga'au”. <http://dag.github.io/cll/18/18/> That is a lot of work (an additional four syllables and necessary stress!) for such a common and important number and still feels off-putting due to the lack of symmetry with other number words. I would prefer to use ni'e for purposes more like the one described in that link or for rarer numbers that are named for people. It works, of course, but it is just not preferable to me. Cheers! Comment #5: Re: Dissimilarity with PA cmavo Wuzzy (Fri Feb 14 14:32:04 2014) True. But this word still has a justification to exist: It serves as a non-experimental alternative to the experimental cmavo. So I see this word as a fallback solution if one wants to avoid experimental cmavo. And as a fallback solution, beauty and shortness are not primary goals.