Subject: Re: [lojban] Problematic entries in the lujvo list

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:25:32 -0500

At 01:55 PM 11/25/2000 +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
>While reviewing the lujvo list, I have come across several entries which
>seem erroneous or problematic, and which I don't know quite how to deal with.
>
>For instance, "baljamna" is glossed as "great war", but the place structure
>clearly shows that the x1 of "baljamna" is the same as that of "jamna" --
>ie. "to be at war with". So the keyword should be changed.

Keywords do not necessarily have to refer to the x1 of the brivla. They 
indicate briefly the concept, which the place structure and definition may 
elaborate on to indicate how the keyword relates to the brivla. In this 
case it sounds like the keyword actually refers to the nu event of the 
brivla. Adding such an annotation is a good idea, but does not mean that 
the keyword is wrong - merely that we need a second lujvo for the nu event.

>"Great
>warrior" seems to be more like "balsoi", and "to be greatly at war" seems
>to long-winded. Any suggestions?
>
>Then I have noticed that several entries in the lujvo list are more than
>one word long! For instance, this one:
> limna bravau limna barda+vasru: swimming pool
>Should such entries be kept in the lujvo list, or perhaps moved somewhere
>else? (A tanru list?)

The lujvo list was originally created by Nick Nicholas. It consisted of 
the lujvo that had appeared in texts, and where he found those lujvo 
malformed or inappropriate, he suggested alternatives, which sometimes were 
better as tanru than as lujvo. We thus keep them in the lujvo list because 
the are replacements or alternatives to other lujvo that appeared in 
text. This type of thing will show up easily when the lists are compiled 
into the dictionary.

Finally, it is possible that a lujvo may have no common use on its own, but 
will usually appear in either longer lujvo or as part of tanru, thus the 
existence as part of a suggested tanru again helps give us an English keyword.

>Finally, I've come across "cfatse", which is intended to mean "sit down".
>But "zutse" already means "sit down", so this lujvo is pleonastic at best,
>and meaningless at worst. Any ideas as to how to interpret this? (Has the
>meaning of "zutse" ever been plainly "sit"?)

It means plainly "sit" with additional metaphorical example for actions 
that resemble sitting (being in a sitting position). (Does a cat or dog 
"sit" in the human sense? Not really. Can a book sit on a table? maybe, 
but I don't think it can be said to zutse. On the other hand, a toy doll 
could be described with zutse if the position was recognizably like that of 
human sitting.)

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org