Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 5 Feb 92 12:59 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA18401; Wed, 5 Feb 92 12:34:51 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA24212; Wed, 5 Feb 92 12:21:43 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA10678; Wed, 5 Feb 92 12:21:38 EST Message-Id: <9202051721.AA10678@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 2110; Wed, 05 Feb 92 12:20:25 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 3231; Wed, 05 Feb 92 12:19:44 EST Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 11:01:34 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: response to Cortesi on Mex issues 2/05/92 X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 5 12:59:57 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Dave raises lots of little points in his postings, some with erroneous assumptions. 1. rafsi are not words, they are sanctioned abbrevaitions usable in compounds. There is nothing inherently wrong with having more than one abbreviation form, especially since in any given word position, one form will likely always be chosen over the other. Because they are not words, they cannot stand alone. Thus "pareci gig ..." fails because the morphology will call gig a name, pareci gig a sumti, and what follows either another sumti or something else. 2. zo du na du zo dunli "du" and "dunli" do not represent the same thing. Admittedly, "du" was etymologically derived from "dunli" for easy memorization, and both are glossed as "equal to" in colloquial English. But they are different kinds of equality. "du" is identity, and is more akin to "mintu" than to "dunli". But both dunli and mintu have different place structures than "du", although all three are equally (dunli, not mintu or du) commutative. 3. With all due respect to the British, the megdo and gigdo gismu and their relatives are based on the metric prefixes, and I hope that a British Lojbanist will use ci gigdo rather than ciki'o megdo. But I think they are the same number so it may not matter. 4. ciki'o megdo is not ambiguous. To incorporate the ki'o rafsi, because it ius a rafsi, you must use the lujvo-making rules. "ki'o" like any CVV rafsi at the beginning of a lujvo (unless the final rafsi is a CCV) must be glued on with the 'other' hyphen, a vocalic 'r' (or n if necessary). Thus the lujvo would be "ci ki'ormegdo", which even more certainly is the same as "ci gigdo" to my mind. lojbab