From jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 15:43:27 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web51608.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.213]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CL87y-0002Jt-LN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:43:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20041022224237.62574.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [212.78.155.30] by web51608.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:42:37 PDT Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:42:37 -0700 (PDT) From: jordi mas Subject: [lojban] Re: Help in examples ... To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8843 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > > "my father" is not a noun but > > works like a noun. > > Er, I would suggest that "my father" is, in fact, > exactly a complex > noun. Depends on who wrote your grammar book. In mine, words were classified in classes, like pronouns, verbs, nouns, and joining words you got noun phrases, sentences... The expression "complex noun" was unheard of. > > All this is not precise, is methaphor. > > And I disagree with you. This is not metaphor, these > are grammatical > terms, and they are precise. Not at all. They are only precise when you and me agree on their exact definition. > One of us is confused. > Naturally, I > think it's you. Perhaps someone else can find agreed > common ground. We are not confused. We are speaking of different things. > > What I'm saying is that we may label things > however we > > want as long as we get the meaning across. > > This is in part exactly my point - you *cannot* > label things however > you choose because then they do *not* get the point > across. > Labelling {sumti} as "nouns" is grossly misleading. > It denies the > unification and consistency offered by the lojban > grammar, one of > its strongest points. Sorry, I'm lost. Suppose I write a lojban grammar and in it I call {bridi} "prefabricated sentences with holes in them", and I call {sumti} "hole fillers". If I were to do that, do you think I would be denying the unification and consistency offered by the lojban grammar, one of its strongest points? > > No particular way of labelling has magical > effects. > > Some ways of labelling have deeply detrimental > effects. That's true. > This is so > obvious, especially if you believe the SWH, that I'm > sure you can't > believe otherwise, I'm sure too. > but you seem to be claiming so. Well, I don't know what I seem to be claiming, so I can't deny that I seem to be claiming so. > Please tell me > I'm misunderstanding you and clarify your position. You're misunderstanding me and I don't claim that no way of labelling has deeply detrimental effects. > > If someone wants to know how lojban works (I'm > > not saying to learn it), you must explain that > > {le karce cu blanu} means > > "car is blue", regardless of whether you say that > > > {blanu} is a "gismu", a "verb" or a "pigeon". > > Actually it's closer to meaning something like "Some > thing or things > that I choose to refer to as a car or cars, > is/are/were/will be > blue." Correction, I should have said lu something like lu car is blue li'u li'u > > Using nouns that a lojbanist would approve off > > doesn't make things easier to understand at all. > > I didn't say she wants to know how it works, I said > I'm trying to > explain why the English grammatical terms are less > accurate and > often inappropriate. That's pointless, if she doesn't know something of how it works. If she doesn't know, she assumes that it works just like English. > Yes, one can say that > generally {sumti} play > the role of nouns, and {selbri} play the role of > verbs, and that > this is not always accurate, but without specific > examples it's hard > to make that stick. Precisely my point. > Are you really suggesting that {sumti} are always > complex nouns? Not so. Complex nouns are a set of English word-sequences. {sumti} are a class of lojban word sequences. I claim that most if not all lojban {sumti} can be translated or at least paraphrased with English complex nouns or non-complex nouns. > If not, can you give me an example? Just one will do. Of course. {le mi patfu}, which is a {sumti}, means something similar to "my father", which is a complex noun, or to "Some person or persons that I choose to refer to as my father or fathers" which is a complex noun too. --jordi ===== _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com