From sentto-44114-19974-1054091142-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Tue May 27 20:06:20 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 May 2003 20:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.64]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KrGY-0007Lh-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 20:06:14 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19974-1054091142-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.97] by n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 May 2003 03:05:43 -0000 X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 19603 invoked from network); 28 May 2003 03:05:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 May 2003 03:05:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.its.unimelb.EDU.AU) (128.250.20.112) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 May 2003 03:05:39 -0000 Received: from [128.250.86.174] (fritslite.language.unimelb.edu.au [128.250.86.174]) by SMTP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU (PMDF V5.2-29 #46888) with ESMTP id <01KWFCK9IQ9I97ZT3N@SMTP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 28 May 2003 13:05:33 +1000 In-reply-to: <1054067697.9772.17799.m10@yahoogroups.com> X-Sender: opoudjis@mail.optushome.com.au To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: References: <1054067697.9772.17799.m10@yahoogroups.com> 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: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:57:53 +1000 Subject: [lojban] Re: Digest Number 1754 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 5471 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 >Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT) > From: Jorge "Llambías" >Subject: Re: Digest Number 1752 > > >la nitcion cusku di'e > >> >It doesn't strike me as a natural class of syntactic classes, since >> >the only thing that those syntactic classes have in common is that >> >they all have the morphological property of being expressed by >> >cmavo. >> >> ... and that they are function words and not content words. > >Some cmavo are content words too. The clearest case is BAIs, each >of which has the full semantic content of a gismu. I really should resist the temptation here, but: the point of the content/function distinction is the function, not the content. A word that adds an argument to a predicate with no other obvious syntactic function --- an adposition --- is pretty canonical as an instance of a function word. How is BAI not an adposition? > > >As for usability in lujvo, one that I've often missed is something >> >correponding to Esperanto -inda, "deserving of". >> >> mapti is kind of vague, but can be pressed into service, surely. > >There are workarounds, yes, but it is a word I've missed in several >occasions. Perhaps; I have used -xamgu in ways others have objected to, probably in the same way (useful as plixau, which I guess is more uzinda than uzebla). >[...] >> >I agree. Not only for gismu, but also for lujvo and fu'ivla. They should >> >not be added willy-nilly and without due consideration. Especially so in >> >the case of gismu forms. >> >> So, we're in agreement. Which I should have realised. :-) > >Yes, I only disagree with the absolute proscription position. Well, you know, I could fulminate "this shall never be discussed", but it seems to me far more constructive to have these proposals raised "once and for all" before the bpfk. If we dismiss them, it would be nice to provide explicit rationales, and get the imprimatur of the community; if there are true gaps, it's our job to consider them, however conservative the institutional bias might be. I won't rule out additions to the gismu set. But like I say, they have to be well justified. In fact (to anticipate a response to And I'll need to make later), it looks like the exptal gismu have been semantically trivial (mangos and taxis) precisely because people have been fearful of the consequences of proposing major additions like "deserving". So in fact the revisionists have been avoiding truly attacking the foundation of the language, the way a proposal of "deserving" might (or might not). Interesting insight, And. >Message: 15 > Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:19:48 -0700 > From: Robin Lee Powell >Subject: Re: bpfk vs jbovlaste > >Repeating what I said in the other thread: jbovlaste will be revised >to disallow experimental words in the dictionary output. I think it would be perfectly adequate to have a big flaming star or other disclaimer (or as a retrieval preference specified globally), but I leave that decision to Jay and you (since you've already taken it anyway :-) >Message: 20 > Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:41:40 -0700 > From: Robin Lee Powell >Subject: Re: Digest Number 1752 > >On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:09:09AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >> Nick Nicholas scripsit: >> >> > Moreover, any objections (and there have been many) lambast the >> > whole of MEX, and MEX cmavo have few defenders. Most prominently >> > you, in fact; the only other I can think of who is on record as >> > not minding them is Robin.CA. >> >> I'll go on record as favoring MEX cmavo too. > >I rather like them, as does Martin Bays. OK, guys, OK. The point was really that noone's going to attack re'a individually from other MEX, and MEX as a whole have been attacked. If any MEX were monosyllabic, you would see particular ones being singled out. I just hope we're not planning to add any... :-) -- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au * Rm 637 Arts Centre, Melbourne University, Australia 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/