From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sat May 24 16:50:28 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 16:50:28 -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 19JimL-0000qC-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 16:50:21 -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 h4P02467002570 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 19:02:04 -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 h4P024P5002569 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 19:02:04 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 19:02:03 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions Message-ID: <20030525000203.GA2398@allusion.net> References: <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net> <20030524204047.76659.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030524204047.76659.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 5386 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 --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:40:47PM -0700, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > la djordan cusku di'e > > What is with this thought that gismu are somehow privledged brivla? >=20 > They are somehow privilidged. It is rather obvious that they are, > from the point of view of the morphology. They are not. They have different behaviors (or they wouldn't be different classes). But none is privledged. If I need a brivla that expresses some predicate relation, it does not matter what type of word it is. [...] > > If you're talking about rafsi, go use zei.=20 >=20 > But zei-words don't quite feel like words. [...] Well, that's probably because they aren't words. But so what? > I'm not even sure they=20 > are defined as a single word in terms of lojban. Can they be used as > the word delimiter for zoi, for example? Can they be quoted with=20 > zo? (Maybe the answer is yes, but it is not at all intuitive.) ZEI is parsed in the tanru rules, so no. [...] > > 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.=20 >=20 > Morphologically, the classes are gismu, cmavo, lujvo, fu'ivla and cmene. Right. > Syntactically, the classes are BRIVLA, CMENE, KOhA, A, BAI, TAhE, VAU, et= c... I.e. brivla, cmavo and cmene, as I mentioned. [...] > > Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla > > are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than > > the others. >=20 > If that were so, then why all the fuss when a new gismu is proposed, > but no fuss when a new lujvo or fu'ivla is proposed?=20 Because the gismu list is frozen, and there's no reason to prefer a gismu rather than another brivla. Having a good number of gismu is desirable, to get rafsi for forming lujvo, however if we decide we need more it needs to be because we need more for forming lujvo, not because someone thinks that gismu are privledged and that some concept (e.g., 'parasite') seems to be 'common' enough or 'important' enough to deserve it, or that all cultures should be given the supposedly privledged status. If you ask why it is frozen (as you no doubt will do); it would not be smart to allow open season on gismu: the knee-jerk creation of gismu for things which can be other brivla damage our ability to increase rafsi for lujvo in the future (and in the process betrays a lack of understanding about the purpose of the different types of brivla). --=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 --wac7ysb48OaltWcw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+0Af7DrrilS51AZ8RAjYYAJ4iT6Wx2rUdsHeVT1V8IF84YX/SJACeMGDw esZyo3AFJbTZ1eEh6pkW9uY= =GHmi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wac7ysb48OaltWcw--