• Egad. Do you really think people will refuse to interpret text some other way if they don't see sei'a? Giving this the grammar of SEI is especially horrific. Just explain your conventions in a to'i...toi.

The idea of it being in SEI — & I confess that in choosing to I was working solely from memory — is so as to be able to indicate the scope of the conventions, i.e. the span of text over which the conventions operate. I assume that if people don't see sei'a they will interpret text in the standard way rather than in any nonstandard way (exception in so far as the speaker does so unintentionally or the hearer assumes the speaker was being nonstandard). --And

  • That assumption would be very reasonable to make if the speaker says "to'i I'm going to use this nonstandard convention... toi".

If you want to indicate scope, SEI is the wrong selma'o. SEI is (.iape'i) basically a way to make a bridi into a UI. For scope, we have scope words: tu'e/tu'u --mi'e mark

  • Yes, that was the motive for choosing SEI: it is a metalinguistic UI and,

as with other UI, its scope can be indicated by tu'e/tu'u. And