From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Sep 18 13:24:43 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 1992 13:24:41 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4998; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:23:33 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 8814; Fri, 18 Sep 92 13:23:31 EDT Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 13:22:49 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Antonyms (was: TECH.QUERY: zo bancu cu mo zo zmadu leka smuni) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Fri, 18 Sep 1992 08:04:17 -0700 Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 08:04:17 -0700 >From: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 09:33:37 -0400 >> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" >> Hrm, actually, that's a stronger argument than I was prepared for: >> why *do* we need both [less-than, more-than]? But again, that's yet >> another topic. >Whenever a language is highly simplified, as Lojban is, one thinks of >"newspeak" in Orwell's "1984". double-plus-un-more-than! JCB could >have used negation or conversion for all antonyms, but I suspect he >rejected this method because of the negative connotations bred by >Orwell. He says that he provided antonyms where they were high in >frequency on the Eaton list. These antonyms were then fed through to >the Lojban vocabulary. OK, I'll accept that answer. I guess I was getting a little overloaded by all the concepts that wind up getting expressed as SE GISMU (not antonyms as such, using {to'e} is different). I don't mind the occasional inconsistency of having a gismu for back-relationship here but not there, especially if it can be backed up by frequency analyses. Still doesn't help with {bancu}/{zmadu}. ~mark