Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <51A5F744.5030100@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:40:36 +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> <CAPAJj9Jidw7LiYMfmZQkzHxFQ9Z5W_P3UPrVUSb8NCykcHu_JQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A4A920.3090104@gmx.de> <CAPAJj9LqL9+-biactB=QQX2vhGrKg218G6JPSjxdg7VRtQna_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPAJj9LqL9+-biactB=QQX2vhGrKg218G6JPSjxdg7VRtQna_A@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 .tijlan. cu cusku di'e
> On 28 May 2013 13:54, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>>
> wrote:
>  > In any case, we could manipulate such names freely. We can {.klaus.
> bo .peter.} or {.peter. co .klaus.} because once split, the above
> problem doesn't exist anymore (it's effectively a case of {BRIVLA bo/co
> BRIVLA}), though it still makes a difference for the meaning of the
> unsplit cmevla string. It becomes especially apparent once you add a
> third component that is supposed to modify the entire cmevla string:
>  >
>  > lo xekri .ford.taurus.
>  >
>  > Option 1 has it that {melbi} modifies {.ford.taurus.}
>  > Option 2 would interpret it as {(melbi .ford.) .taurus.}
>  >
>  > It can't be both, so a decision has to be made.
>
>  From my perspective, if koha's family name is "klaus", that's a string
> not specific to koha but shared by koha & certain family members. It's a
> generic name, and quite compatible with the semantics of seltau.

"Klaus-Peter" is a first name, just like "Jean-Claude".

> If a specific name consists of multiple strings, like "Jean-Claude", and
> if we didn't want to concatenate them into one string, we could make a
> tertau that's a pair of parallel selbri joined by a connective: {.jan.
> JOI .klod.}.

Or maybe the hyphen should simply be ignored, and the person would be 
called {.klauspeter.} or {.janklod.}.

> Or, one could invoke CLL 5:15:
> "The tanru may refer to things which are correctly specified by both
> tanru components."

Sure, some tanru expand into a gi'e construct. IF a cmevla string falls 
apart into seperate tanru-units, then it would apply to them too.

>  > I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of symmetry. The whole
> point of The Merge is to *increase* symmetry, is it not?
>
> Assuming you are talking about tanru: [...]

I'm talking about the symmetry between brivla and cmevla. Making them 
behave in exactly the same way is what I call symmetry. Similarly, GIJA 
would create symmetry among the logical and non-logical connectives.

> Also:
> Suppose someone is named "Panz Lanz". "Panz" is the given name, "Lanz"
> the family name. If we lojbanized and treated each as symmetric parts of
> the name -- i.e. both {panz} and {lanz} refer specifically to the
> individual offspring --, we might still want a generic cmevla for
> different members of the Lanz family. We could reasonably use {lanz} for
> that. Then what reason would there be to keep {lanz} & {panz} symmetric
> rather than letting {lanz} modify {panz} as per the usual handling of tanru?

This is not the symmetry I was talking about, see above. A tanru, 
whether it be one made from brivla or cmevla, should always be vague 
about the relationship between seltau and tertau.

> Having family names as independent cmevla rather than an inalienable
> part of a specific name, can be productive, as in the "Koch brothers",
> {kok bruna}, "Koch-type-of brothers". "David Koch" could then be {kok
> deivid}, "Koch-type-of David". I think it would make sense if {kok} in
> the two tanru referred generically to the same family rather than
> brothers on one hand and an individual on the other hand, at least to
> the extent that it *is* a family name. In the "Mario brothers" and the
> "Doobie Brothers", "Mario" and "Doobie" aren't a family name, but they
> can still be translated as a seltau modifying {bruna}.

I agree. This is a strong argument for Option 2, which means that the 
Ford Taurus example would have to be {lo melbi ke .ford.taurus.}.

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.