On Wednesday, A= pril 25, 2012 8:05:35 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:

That's a bias in favor of klama2, which is malgli 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" i.e. "going from below"= i.e. "rising". This seems less obvious to an English speaker but that's on= ly because of preposition omission; "going below" is "going to below" which= is essentially symmetric with the case which favors klama3. There is a sim= ilar albeit less natural version for klama4, namely essentially "tunneling"= , 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:

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

At first I must say that I'm not a memb= er 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 loo= k at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.

Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend" (in = English they differ in sounding considerably)
nobody can guess th= at {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean "go in a lower position under = something" without getting the translation 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 below", i.e. "desc= ending".

How is that difficult to figure out?

Although anybody i= s 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.
1. First rule

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

2. cmavo attached to rafsi don't lead to the emergenc= e of a new meaning. Therefore selpa'i is a synonym for "se prami" (ac= tually the second rule is not a new rule at all).

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 suggest th= at no new meaning is added here.

In other words ra= fybri can be constructed from tanru only if the latter have logical operato= rs

("pelnimre tricu" can't be compressed into rafybri).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= 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@googl= egroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.