From pycyn@aol.com Fri Oct 20 11:55:09 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 18:55:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28282 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 18:55:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 18:55:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 18:55:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id a.22.cb964bb (3960) for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:55:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22.cb964bb.2721ef08@aol.com> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:55:04 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:literalism To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-10-20 13:58:58 EDT, maikl writes: << PINJI DINJU sounds like a bathhouse. >> Technically, I suspect a teahouse. xod: < lujvo process (lujvoization? lujvoizing?) because 1. we drop cmavo, 2. we select one of many possible meanings. So I must disagree that tanru and lujvo face the same issues.>> There are an infinite number of lujvo, too, and tanru are also limited (by human capacity) to a"reasonable size" (in fact, probably less complex than reasonable lujvo, because tanru are longer, by and large). We *can* drop cmavo, but don't have to (and literalists don't even like to), we obviously select one meaning for a tanru each time we use it -- and it would be really bad form to select a different meaning each time we use it, especially in the same context. But yes, lujvo meaning gets fixed, tanru meaning -- outside of a context -- does not (officially). But how does that save the situation in a given case, which is largely what is at issue here: the meaning of the tanru (and of the lujvo) should be, the literalist says, a rule governed (and my ordering of rules at that) product of its components else it is wrong, bad, inaccurate, malwhatever, etc. The two cases seem exactly on a par.