Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:35:27 +0200
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
Message-ID: <20130609133526.GD24964@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <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>
 <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rz+pwK2yUstbofK6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51B47305.4020704@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--rz+pwK2yUstbofK6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

coi rodo

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 02:20:21PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
> 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.
>=20
> 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.

Fine, finally you guys managed to formulate ba'e how your opinions differ.

> >But that isn't the case for Lojban.
>=20
> You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).

Hold it right there. He's definitely not. It's just that some people
who produce most noise - not judging whether this is good or bad - on this =
list
oppose it. That doesn't mean nobody else has the same opinion.
I also assume most people don't care at all wondering why there's so much f=
uss
over this.

> But the accepted definition of {la} is:
>
> la broda =3D=3D lo selcme be zo broda

No, it is not. The last "accepted" "definition" of {la} is in xorlo which s=
tates

la [PA] broda - zo'e noi lu [PA] broda li'u cmene ke'a mi

I'm not sure that is the same thing. At least the full structure of the sub=
sentence
includes {zo'e}s, so you can't get around them at all levels.

Another rather simple observation: Whether or not {la selpa'i}
is decided to have some semantic connection to {prami}, you're not able to =
make
people ignore connotations of the word you're uttering.
Psychological fact (if such things even exist).
Therefore, if I read {la tsani}, I will think of the person AND I will think
of sky. Same for {selpa'i}. So if you don't want me to think of "beloved"
when I read about you, pick a different name.

John E Clifford wrote:
> The new understanding of {la} would technically open the
> path to all that, but custom is sure to intervene and prevent the worst o=
f it,
> I hope.

sei palci cmila do ba'e krici xu

You're optimistic. If it's allowed and even pointed out, people will do it.
Especially in an online community were morals barely exist in the first pla=
ce.


v4hn

--rz+pwK2yUstbofK6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlG0hJ4ACgkQMBKLZs4+wjzl2QCeIGs2mTgiJRgjkBO+Y4rIDe5Q
qMUAn1+3vDB/fGJORx1KLv38OL01+e1z
=TgVW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rz+pwK2yUstbofK6--