From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Sep 11 15:31:47 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-14.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17pG1P-00060w-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:31:43 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-212.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.212]) by mailbox-14.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EFA90492BC for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:31:08 +0200 (DST) From: "And Rosta" To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:32:44 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020911174019.GK6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1156 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Robin Lee Powell: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:20:09AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:00:03PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > > Robin CA: > > > > > The whole *point* of lujvo, unless I'm missing something, is > > > > > that someone should be able to dissect them and figure out what > > > > > you mean. > > > > > > > > Not so. Lujvo are simply a means of creating new words for new > > > > meanings. However, other things being equal (e.g. word length), a > > > > candidate lujvo is held to be the more superior the more its > > > > meaning and place structure can be guessed from its constituent > > > > parts. > > > > > > I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. 8) > > > > Not. It is not the case that the whole point of lujvo is that someone > > should be able to dissect them and figure out what you mean. The whole > > point of lujvo is that they are words formed from parts that have > > independent meaning within Lojban, but with a meaning that is not > > equivalent to the sum of their parts. Their dissectablity is not their > > point. > > OK. What is their point? The whole point of lujvo is that they are words formed from parts that have independent meaning within Lojban, but with a meaning that is not equivalent to the sum of their parts. We need lujvo & fuhivla because for new meanings we need new words. --And.