From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Sep 18 11:06:45 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 1992 11:06:43 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3829; Fri, 18 Sep 92 11:05:35 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 6627; Fri, 18 Sep 92 11:05:33 EDT Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 08:04:17 -0700 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Subject: Antonyms (was: TECH.QUERY: zo bancu cu mo zo zmadu leka smuni) To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: > 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. -- jimc