From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Aug 10 06:15:28 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IJUKr-0004dl-W2 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:15:26 -0700 Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IJUKo-0004dZ-Ql for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:15:25 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070810131514.UPXS2483.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:15:14 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id aDFD1X00a3y5FKc0000000; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:15:15 -0400 Message-ID: <46BC6554.7080409@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:08 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: anti-Zipfian gismu rant References: <46BBDB4D.6020401@lojban.org> <398993.4184.qm@web56403.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <925d17560708100554m6232d274ua912df386fd715b7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560708100554m6232d274ua912df386fd715b7@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5330 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 8/10/07, Nathaniel Krause wrote: > >>Can someone clarify Lojban's semantic philosophy in this regard? I was under >>the impression that for something to be a ro'erbroda it must by definition >>be an instance of a brode broda and, more broadly, an instance of a broda. >>Is the statement {lo'e ro'erbroda na broda} logically contradictory? > > > Not really, there is no strict connection between {brode broda} > and {ro'erbroda}. In particular the place structure of {brode broda} > is identical to the place structure of {broda}, whereas the place > structure of {ro'erbroda} is independent and usually different from that > of {broda}. There are many informal relationships, for example you > can more or less be certain of what the place structure of {ro'ergau} > is just based on the place structures of brode and gasnu, but there > are no fixed and absolute rules. > > Having said that, the expected and normal outcome is that a > ro'erbroda will indeed be a kind of broda, but it doesn't always > work. At this point someone needs to point out the extensive examples in CLL of tanru that are NOT "broda brode"="broda type of brode" lojbab