From sentto-44114-19906-1053957230-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon May 26 06:54:43 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 06:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.68]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KIQg-0001pP-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 06:54:22 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19906-1053957230-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2003 13:53:50 -0000 X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 67236 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 13:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2003 13:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail025.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.147) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2003 13:53:49 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17354.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.214]) by mail025.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4QDrmE12709 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:53:48 +1000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-Id: <794CAC48-8F81-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:53:47 +1000 Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5404 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list To And's puzzlement, all I have to respond with is: gismu are a closed class. Per definitionem. If it's bullshit to introduce "kir" and "git" as gender-neutral pronouns in English (and it is), then it is just as bullshit (per definitionem) to introduce new gismu into Lojban. Innovating gismu is not held to the same standard as innovating lujvo, and if they are, then we abandon the distinction between the two, which is foundational to Lojban morphology. So your parallel with lexical innovation of nouns or verbs in English is false. Any additions to the gismu set must be gradual and well-considered: *obviously* gismu are privileged, purely in terms of morphology and productivity, and I don't get why anyone would argue otherwise. And with all respect to jbovlaste, I don't see anyone expecting that the entirety of its contents will ever constitute a baseline (especially if it is to be issued in the next three years). Gismu and camvo are baselined. I really don't see the point in a large set of lujvo or fu'ivla being in a baseline. In a reference dictionary, sure. But I don't set on such a dictionary the canonical value I place on the fundamental building blocks of the language. (This counters Bob's vision of the dictionary. But then, Bob has his vision, and I have mine. And I continue to think his vision naive.) **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian, University of Melbourne, Australia * nickn@unimelb.edu.au http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/