Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Message-ID: <51B4EEFA.9060009@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:09:14 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
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> <1370781558.18791.YahooMailNeo@web184404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2evm9SezfsaxmFa5HiG0B4HYmbkcMjuv4FjqCa4Us7FVw@mail.gmail.com> <51B4BA33.1030507@lojban.org> <CAO7tK2dOSinU1Vb3+gGRWkDmK8aXBeqNrk4NqXCvwUZXO_n-bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2dOSinU1Vb3+gGRWkDmK8aXBeqNrk4NqXCvwUZXO_n-bw@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=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder -
> LLG <lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>> wrote:
>
>     Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
>
>         On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
>         Founder -
>         LLG <lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>
>         <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>>> wrote:
>
>
>     But the argument that I was responding to seems to indicate that
>     anything marked with "la" is just a string being treated as a name
>     with no semantic content in the same way that "zo" turns a string
>     into a sumti with no semantic content.
>
>
> That's basically what CLL says in Chapter 6 Section 2:
>
> "The last descriptor of this section is =93la=94, which indicates that th=
e
> selbri which follows it has been dissociated from its normal meaning and
> is being used as a name."

I'll have to read the context, but I think that doesn't say the same=20
thing; it is a statement about semantics, whereas it is the grammar that=20
has been baselined, not any semantic theory.

Below I refer to "the so-called merge proposal", which is a phrase I=20
would express with "la".  Whatever choice of sumti-tail I would choose=20
to describe the proposal would be being "used as a name", but I'm not=20
sure that "dissociated from its normal meaning" means that the normal=20
meaning is irrelevant".  And in any event, the grammar of the words is=20
quite relevant.

> I'm also pretty sure your problem is not with that. You oppose the merge
> of CMEVLA with BRIVLA because you oppose any changes to the language.

I do so oppose  - prior to the documentation baseline.  I've actually=20
not taken a position on the so-called "merge" proposal, as I think has=20
been described in the thread.

>It
> would be better if you just said that instead of trying to come up with
> arguments involving nicknmes or places of selbri, which are really not
> all that relevant to the proposed merge.

I was describing the intent of the designer (me) for the original=20
design, for which those arguments were in fact the sorts of things that=20
I had in mind in adding the current flexibility of constructs for use in=20
descriptions and vocatives. (I still don't know what a "cmevla" is.  I=20
know what a "cmene" is)

>     I know what dotside does, and was just making a joke about one
>     extreme possibility of treating any old word-string as a name.
>
>
> As you point out somewhere else, it is already possible: "la'o cmene la
> cmene" is correct Lojban.

It is a correct type 1 fu'ivla, just as cmene are type 2 fu'ivla. One=20
uses the appropriate conversion cmavo to make it into the appropriate=20
grammatical chunk (selbri or sumti)

lojbab


--=20
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 e=
mail 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=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.