Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.15;
Message-ID: <51A49A57.6060608@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:51:51 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com> <51A379EF.3020803@gmx.de> <CAHxnAm+HZGvy=Ck9nvogsR_uHL=+BYPho6vDKe8WGp-H4xKmEA@mail.gmail.com> <51A38E6B.7080107@gmx.de> <CAHxnAm+FnkKPHvna1kUO4Hh3Hz6c7_h-fzZVQK16=cz2w2dnvw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAm+FnkKPHvna1kUO4Hh3Hz6c7_h-fzZVQK16=cz2w2dnvw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .betsemes. cu cusku di'e
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
>> (Note that la gleki == la .arxokuna, he should probably make his name change
>> more obvious)
>
> I know. The examples I used were not intended to be the real people
> that populate this list, but fictional characters bearing those names.
> I might have used any brivla combination for that example and that
> would not make any practical difference.

I know that it was just an example. :)

>> You'd have to call them something like {la broda me la .betsemes. selpa'i}.
>> It's very ugly, but because there is a way to make it work, it's not broken,
>> just inconvenient. Or so goes the argument.
>
> The argument is fatally flawed because that's not the real world
> usage. That's a completely different usage from what is in use.

In use in Latin America or in Lojbanistan? I assume the former, but 
sometimes people say "usage" to refer to "Lojban usage that differs from 
CLL-Lojban".

> As the
> lojban naming system is currently defined, the naming system used on
> latin american countries is impossible.

Sure, but then there is the counter-argument that Lojban does not need 
to be able to mirror every culture and every language.

>> Of course "not broken" isn't the same as "cannot be improved". The Merge
>> would mean a great simplification (in a good way) of the language.
>
> I actually wouldn't call it a "merge" since cmevla and brivla are word
> types/classes so defined by just their form. They  will continue being
> so after the "merge".

Yes, it's only a matter of making them syntactically equal. They remain 
morphologically distinct classes.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

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