That's a bias in favor of klama2, which is m= algli if it is considered to be inherent (it isn't malgli in an actual = lujvo definition). It could just as easily be "below type-of-going&quo= t; i.e. "going from below" i.e. "rising". This seems le= ss obvious to an English speaker but that's only because of preposition= omission; "going below" is "going to below" which is e= ssentially symmetric with the case which favors klama3. There is a similar = albeit less natural version for klama4, namely essentially "tunneling&= quot;, in the physical sense.

On the general topic, I think making a substantive agglutinative system= is probably going to wind up being futile in a language like this.

= mu'o mi'e latros

On Tue, Apr 24, = 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki = <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

At first I must say that I'm not a = member of any language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).
And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban can be enri= ched.
Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaki= ng real Lojban.
Everything here should be marked as exclusively e= xperimental and (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.

None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.
<= div>
Rafybri

I always = noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.
Let's= look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.

Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "desc= end" (in English they differ in sounding considerably)
nobod= y can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean &q= uot;go in a lower position under something" without getting the transl= ation beforehand.

I disagree. I argue that it is actually rather = easy to determine the meaning of nitkla.

Let us assume that nitkla i= s a lujvo formed from the tanru {cnita klama}, which may or may not be true= . {cnita klama} is a "below type-of going", i.e.. "going bel= ow", i.e. "descending".

How is that difficult to figure out?
=A0

Although= anybody is free to say "klama lo cnita" instead

it will lead to lengthier speech.

What I sugg= est is to glue bridi together into a new form of lujvo called "rafybri= ".
That's how it works.=A0
1. First rule

4 new = rafsi
zve <=3D be fe lo
zvi <=3D be fi lo=A0
zvo <=3D be fo lo=A0
zvu <=3D be fu lo=A0
a= nd=A0
jve (fifth rafsi)
When composing rafybri you replace= gismu with rafsi and "be fe lo" etc. with new rafsi of ZVE serie= s.

2. cmavo attached to rafsi don't lead t= o the emergence of a new meaning. Therefore selpa'i =A0is a synonym for= "se prami" (actually the second rule is not a new rule at all).<= /div>

Applying this rule we can dramatically compress the len= gth of lojbanic jufra.
And if we replace cnita with dizlo in our = example we can save even two syllables.
klama lo cnita =3D klama = lo dizlo =3D kla+zve+dzi =3D klazvedzi

blanu je crino =3D blajveri'o. In this case I refer= to {blajveri'o} as to a synonym of {blanu je crino} (blue-green). I su= ggest that no new meaning is added here.

In other = words rafybri can be constructed from tanru only if the latter have logical= operators

("pelnimre tricu" can't be compressed into rafybri).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com= /d/msg/lojban/-/kgWQbXt6Q-QJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.