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: <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:20:21 +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> <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com> <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3+aWwW0E3QP271aRNP8oKMy9hNDipjypX6hhJkauM+_A@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F326.2020901@lojban.org> <51A8F89D.2040408@gmx.de> <51B00097.8080004@lojban.org> <51B06D24.6020102@gmx.de> <51B46762.8080509@lojban.org>
In-Reply-To: <51B46762.8080509@lojban.org>
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 .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
> Those exceptions are in fact significant - they are examples of the
> brivla (or whatever word) being taken as a string of symbols/sounds that
> exists on it own regardless of which word or kind of word that it is. It
> would seem that you want names to be another example of a string of
> symbols taken as such a standalone language unit.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying they are. I thought I had made that 
clear. A name is a word (or multiple words) used to refer to some 
entity, irrespective of what that word might mean.

> But that isn't the case for Lojban.

You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).

As you say, {zo tsani} is just the "standalone language unit" "tsani", 
the word itself, without any hidden places. But the accepted definition 
of {la} is:

la broda == lo selcme be zo broda

So you must have a different definition of {la} than everyone else.

> I am saying that as far as Lojban is concerned "{la tsani} and {la tsani
> be zo'e}" are linguistically equivalent, and there is no way to say "la
> tsani" such that it DOESN'T include a possible value in the unspecified
> places; they are there and they are "zo'e", if nothing else.

I understand your position. However, I doubt la tsani would agree that 
his name is "tsani be zo'e". It's not the same name as it is a different 
string of sounds.

> And dotside or no dotside, I will never accept someone's choice of name
> to be "la" %^)

That's your private business, but don't expect everyone else to follow 
your personal preference here. I also don't see how dotside is relevant 
to this.

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.