Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: iesk <pa.fae@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <548fdecf-87b7-4302-b4e9-360910eff760@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <496eac79-991b-43a9-bc80-d3dac65cd246@googlegroups.com>
References: <04cecf13-9f41-4589-9e37-e3987ef53330@googlegroups.com>
 <496eac79-991b-43a9-bc80-d3dac65cd246@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Possible polysemy clashes for "regular affixes" in lujvo?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_453_34480894.1431453107491"
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: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_453_34480894.1431453107491
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_454_1138078226.1431453107498"

------=_Part_454_1138078226.1431453107498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is an interesting observation. However, there already is an=20
established way to deal with such apparent conflicts of (possibly)=20
meanings: the correct meaning is defined by the authoritative dictionary.

Tanru are coined on the fly. Lujvo mean what they mean. Cf. CLL 4.5, CLL=20
4.10.

So maybe the perception that there is a problem with lujvo stems from a=20
slight confusion of their function in the language?

One solution I thought of might be to ditch the school of thought that all=
=20
> lujvo that have the same ve lujvo are equivalent and completely=20
> interchangeable
> Thus {zangasnu} could be {zabna fa lo nu X1 gasnu X2},
> While {zabnygau} could be {X1 gasnu lo nu X2 zabna X3 X4}
>

Kontra=C5=AD-Fundamenta, thus bad. (I believe it to be one of the unnatural=
istic=20
traits of the language that word-forms as different as {xamgyzmadu},=20
{xaurmau}, and {xagzma} may never acquire different nuances of meaning. But=
=20
that's how it is.)
=20

> {ta'ocu'i pe'i} that Lojban as-is relies way too much on the short rafsi=
=20
> anyway, which may inhibit learning it naturally. For example, {snura} "to=
=20
> be safe/secure", often gets combined with {gasnu} to make {nurgau} "to=20
> secure/protect". But that relies on the student remembering the rafsi of =
a=20
> not-quite-so-promiscuous gismu. It would probably be much easier to see t=
he=20
> connection if the "standard form" remains {snurygau}.
>

You need to *know* the lujvo's meaning anyway (see above); the rafsi are=20
just kind of memory hooks. And would it be wise to tweak the language=20
around learners' difficulties in remembering parts of the language?

--=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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_454_1138078226.1431453107498
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>This is an interesting observation. However, there al=
ready is an established way to deal with such apparent conflicts of (possib=
ly) meanings: the correct meaning is defined by the authoritative dictionar=
y.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div>Tanru are coined on the fly. Lujvo mea=
n what they mean. Cf. CLL 4.5, CLL 4.10.</div></div><div><br></div><div>So =
maybe the perception that there is a problem with lujvo stems from a slight=
 confusion of their function in the language?</div><div><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left:=
 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr">One solution I thought=
 of might be to ditch the school of thought that all lujvo that have the sa=
me ve lujvo are equivalent and completely interchangeable<div>Thus {zangasn=
u} could be&nbsp;{zabna fa lo nu X1 gasnu X2},</div><div>While {zabnygau} c=
ould be&nbsp;{X1 gasnu lo nu X2 zabna X3 X4}</div></div></blockquote><div><=
br></div><div>Kontra=C5=AD-Fundamenta, thus bad. (I believe it to be one of=
 the unnaturalistic traits of the language that word-forms as different as =
{xamgyzmadu}, {xaurmau}, and {xagzma} may never acquire different nuances o=
f meaning. But that's how it is.)<br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>{ta'ocu'i pe'i} that Lo=
jban as-is relies way too much on the short rafsi anyway, which may inhibit=
 learning it naturally. For example, {snura} "to be safe/secure", often get=
s combined with {gasnu} to make {nurgau} "to secure/protect". But that reli=
es on the student remembering the rafsi of a not-quite-so-promiscuous gismu=
. It would probably be much easier to see the connection if the "standard f=
orm" remains {snurygau}.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You ne=
ed to *know* the lujvo's meaning anyway (see above); the rafsi are just kin=
d of memory hooks. And would it be wise to tweak the language around learne=
rs' difficulties in remembering parts of the language?</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_454_1138078226.1431453107498--
------=_Part_453_34480894.1431453107491--