From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jul 21 04:26:34 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MTDUP-0006N0-Mz for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:26:33 -0700 Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MTDUL-0006MZ-7F for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:26:33 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090721112624.ZXEX5576.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:26:24 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id JbSN1c00M22sj6m02bSNrz; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:26:23 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=FiHkjX2v7ocA:10 a=o0ZSxsKZBTm9PnDpZpsA:9 a=uFlx6QT_jdprUM_0AoSU74bj_3EA:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4A65A5DC.7020100@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:26:20 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Philosophical differences. References: <126025.43169.qm@web50408.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <425e4ac20907201631o31437b32l43c2a473ff5c9a43@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <425e4ac20907201631o31437b32l43c2a473ff5c9a43@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 15789 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Stela Selckiku wrote: > It's true of course that the gismu don't necessarily provide a very > *good* set of mnenomics. There could be a lot more choices than -tcu > and -dji, but instead what we have is a lot of words for household > objects and body parts and wtf-ever. What I propose broadly to > respond to this (utterly unfixable) overall situation is what I have > called "cimjvo", cilmo zei lujvo, moist lujvo, lujvo which are wet > with meaning, or to put it more concretely: lujvo with an elided > "-pev-". (The lujvo "cimjvo" is of course self-describing, for > instance.) Bravo on the creation. Have you defined it in jbovlaste? > or to put it more concretely: lujvo with an elided "-pev-". "pev" is only needed where it is pragmatically necessary to distinguish between a non-metaphorical and a metaphorical interpretation of a word. If there was a non-metaphorical concept written as cimjvo, then pevycimjvo would be needed to express your concept. You can habitually add pev to all metaphorical composed lujvo to be safe (to make sure that there is room for a more literal lujvo if someone needs it). But, if you've seriously put in the thought as to whether there is a plausible non-metaphorical meaning, and are satisfied, omit the pev. Especially if it is a word that is finding common usage (under a Zipf's law argument, many things can be eliminated). > I think it would be a good idea to use the flavored words we have for > various specific needs, like taske and xagji, as additional bases for > families of words about wanting and needing. We don't need a full > family of lujvo for different kinds of actual non-metaphorical thirst! > In theory that sounds cool, but I am having trouble even thinking of > more than one type of thirst. taske was added because we simply couldn't be sure that it was culturally neutral to conflate it with xagji. > So, as I've just demonstrated, either -taske > can be metaphorical, By all means! lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.