From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sat May 24 10:04:29 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 10:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs24349-133.austin.rr.com
	([24.243.49.133] helo=cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19JcQy-0007KL-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:03:52 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4OHFU67099646
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sat, 24 May 2003 12:15:30 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h4OHFUOs099641
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 12:15:30 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:15:30 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions
Message-ID: <20030524171529.GA99432@allusion.net>
References: <7FC7B245-8DD5-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> <200305240751.29472.phma@webjockey.net> <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net> <200305241228.10735.phma@webjockey.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200305241228.10735.phma@webjockey.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-archive-position: 5382
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Saturday 24 May 2003 11:22, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > What is with this thought that gismu are somehow privledged brivla?
> > This is the same thing that makes people assert that all cultures
> > should have gismu, instead of some with gismu and some with lujvo.
> >
> > If you're talking about rafsi, go use zei.  If you're talking about
> > word length, many lujvo have only 2 syllables, and 3 is totally
> > fine (hell "parasite" is 3 in english).  What advantage could you
> > possibly see for it being a gismu?
>=20
> I repeat, I did not invent {parji}. Go ask whoever did. I did invent {zma=
se},=20
> because "-ase" is a common suffix.

But you endorsed the concept that some ideas are "common enough"
that there "ought to be gismu for them".

> > I think this all rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of lojban
> > word classes.  People like to think about gismu, cmavo and lujvo.
> > But it's actually brivla, cmavo and cmene.  Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla
> > are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than
> > the others.
>=20
> Not true. Some fu'ivla have rafsi (proposed); all gismu except {brod(i,o,=
u)}=20
> have rafsi; some gismu have short rafsi. So {malgaci zei smani} cannot be=
=20
> shortened, but {glauka zei cnebo} can be shortened to {glaukyne'o}, and=
=20
> {xamgu zei zmadu} can be shortened to {xagmau}.

What's not true?  I agree with everything you just said regarding
rafsi.

I already (preemptively) addressed the rafsi =3D privledge argument;
the existence of zei destroys it.

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE+z6ixDrrilS51AZ8RAncnAKDNHcMQXk4tWMlcKrp55FDww3uEOACgyUlC
ldyu7bpMDBNaGdSRBl797BY=
=/ngC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--