Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:51132)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCK30vq5WEKrEzvUEGgSGfLwW@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RMFDy-0007FZ-8b; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:34:18 -0700
Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4sf2198282gyg.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id
         :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent
         :sender:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to
         :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post
         :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-disposition;
        bh=Vtjx1uAh5UdbjGi3eW/Akq2zd0PAYpu7kyZlPyum1bU=;
        b=Guop9JmLJsRPlrKrS5d2kB4sqHVoa1L7h7XyMAixr12flP28FzJgaxxtaV1QSGsbP2
         fBT9b0APCJdtfVz663YcJ2cF6AZ9rvs1kuVfadaO1uhogwZ+gCWbyAY75qDy/ZyppNfP
         4x5W+bQP2G5agsz0025GjQm18UO/4/Rd6BF2I=
Received: by 10.236.116.229 with SMTP id g65mr4559618yhh.1.1320395306039;
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.100.237.8 with SMTP id k8ls5787220anh.2.gmail; Fri, 04 Nov
 2011 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.80.34 with SMTP id j22mr20253653yhe.5.1320395304369;
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.80.34 with SMTP id j22mr20253652yhe.5.1320395304360;
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stodi.digitalkingdom.org (mail.digitalkingdom.org. [173.13.139.236])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q7si2817910icc.4.2011.11.04.01.28.24
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rlpowell@stodi.digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.236 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.236;
Received: from rlpowell by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <rlpowell@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>)
	id 1RMF8R-0007BQ-4z
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:28:23 -0700
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 01:28:23 -0700
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Use fu'ivla more (was Re: [lojban] Supporting Lojbanic babies.)
Message-ID: <20111104082822.GO27896@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <20111101095715.GD15924@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <CAMKwHj3uP4bGXzZATpzyZYaE8fkWGNQxUOiUvXz8X=1De+6rDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111102003244.GK15924@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
 <CA+gZtgKe80vukWuW=_JLCpFUw0_SuVSc6=JU1kAzRm8c2S24=Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+gZtgKe80vukWuW=_JLCpFUw0_SuVSc6=JU1kAzRm8c2S24=Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of rlpowell@stodi.digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.236 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 03:32:18PM -0400, Ian Johnson wrote:
    > I think a lot of the arguments "against" lujvo in this thread > vanish
   when you insist to yourself to at least give a pure lojban > definition of
    a lujvo an attempt. Example from the other day that > I made that I think
    illustrates the point pretty well: > > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/menseika'e
    > > It makes sense for this to be a lujvo because I can write out what >
   it means in lojban. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 03:32:18PM -0400, Ian Johnson wrote:
> I think a lot of the arguments "against" lujvo in this thread
> vanish when you insist to yourself to at least give a pure lojban
> definition of a lujvo an attempt. Example from the other day that
> I made that I think illustrates the point pretty well:
>
> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/menseika'e
>
> It makes sense for this to be a lujvo because I can write out what
> it means in lojban.

I think that's a pretty excellent test, actually, although I do
believe that anything *can* be explained in Lojban with only the
words we have ... eventually.  :)  It just might take a page of
text.  But "can be compactly described in Lojban" seems like a good
boundary condition for lujvo-making.

In that particular case, though, it doesn't really work; "menli
sepli" doesn't mean anything like "distinguish" to me at all.  I'd
take that to mean "can keep two issues seperate in one's mind", like
a therapist who sees both of a married couple and has to keep their
issues seperated mentally.  If you showed me your Lojban definition
there, I'd *never* have come up with a meaning remotely like the
English word "distinguish", which to me has nothing whatsoever to do
with {sepli}.  "distinguish" is about being able to tell the
differences between things, which is {frica} I think.  In other
words, and I'm sorry, menseika'e is a really bad word IMO for the
stated English meaning.

That doesn't change the fact that I agree with your assertion about
lujvo.

> If you have legitimate trouble with a pure lojban definition, at
> least for the denotation of the word, it probably doesn't make
> sense for it to be a lujvo. At the very least it probably isn't
> jvajvo.

+1

> Incidentally, it would be kinda nice if type 4s could have rafsi,
> so that you could coin just a few basic jargon concepts and then
> interrelate the others using lujvo. For example you could have a
> lujvo of "integrated circuit" and a handful of others and with a
> little more work you could coin a lot of the jargon hardware terms
> as lujvo.

IIRC xorxes had a proposal there?

-Robin

-- 
http://singinst.org/ :  Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei".   My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.