Received: from mail-lb0-f187.google.com ([209.85.217.187]:53219) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XRSqA-0002wo-QB; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:43 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f187.google.com with SMTP id n15sf764391lbi.4 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SX/az7PC2PkU3V1IB139gH6q7mvLjZclaYvIVvFq6Lo=; b=lmEpNT5Bo9ulOBHpEPZk+xgGgWnPPGIGE2iCX/uei2iDemChHxAgfqDUrsnBqkJmqM IY3DRJRtvft0rLYkAaEJ0nrZwq8HajAl3rjqAgX/NjhnPHyAsmd9ViW3Vy8/R64d8UTJ HidG7FeJ6Mp4LpJkI+7A+SdQEJh/S6FWCFpIpzonlMswPIVu+TxZlG1uCYMsOQGdrdfT sas2uBI18LJiVKK+Zd7DK9z6xkRRjqdI1YoNbCPDPQas+PoSekVdxpwGaetNBWrnTYNP VXzbrsmouKSvE5vCwPWhmDmBz0ya3yXrAQe0U8P2wa6jVSJJSn5afS6Tn3xlcbmR/mux h0CQ== X-Received: by 10.152.19.226 with SMTP id i2mr256656lae.5.1410297635135; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.2.226 with SMTP id 2ls373368lax.61.gmail; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.163.104 with SMTP id yh8mr3680301lbb.5.1410297634274; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ht7si185424wib.0.2014.09.09.14.20.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::229; Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w61so2870816wes.0 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.57.237 with SMTP id l13mr14812909wjq.102.1410297634143; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (97e1e8ee.skybroadband.com. [151.225.232.238]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bg10sm16230650wjc.47.2014.09.09.14.20.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <540F6F22.2030305@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:20:34 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] {gunma}, {selcmi} and gadri definitions References: <540EFD66.2080509@gmail.com> <540F0670.5060804@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Gleki Arxokuna, On 09/09/2014 14:55: > I disagree. I suggest that SEL- lujvo are always jvajvo, no cimjvo. With what rationale for suggesting this? Has "jvajvo" changed meaning? It usedn't to mean complete compositionality. > The same goes for -gau, -zu'e, -selja'e, some other rafsi. For these there is an argument from (syntactic rather than merely phonologi= cal) brevity, tho resorting to fully compositional lujvo is kind of a hacky= workaround and uses up lujvo space not very needfully. --And. =20 > 2014-09-09 17:53 GMT+04:00 And Rosta >: > > Ilmen, On 09/09/2014 14:15: > > I don't like very much the idea of using the sel- rafsi in a > non-compositional way, for making lujvo of the form {selbroda} wh= ose > meaning cannot be derived from {se broda}. It seems there's a pre= tty > wide implicit agreement that the sel/ter/vel/xel rafsi should be > regular (semantically compositional). > > > That dislike and agreement strike me as not very rational. The princi= pal grammatical function of lujvo relative to phrases is to signal noncompo= sitionality -- a sense other than, and typically more specific than, the se= nse of the unlujvoized phrasal counterpart. A secondary function of lujvo i= s that sometimes they're shorter, but given that brevity is only a marginal= consideration in Lojban design, the key grammatical characteristic of lujv= ohood is noncompositionality, with the rafsi having merely a kind of mnemon= ic function. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.