From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri Apr 23 21:07:01 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 24 Apr 1993 01:57:41 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4859; Sat, 24 Apr 93 01:57:16 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3033; Sat, 24 Apr 93 01:58:05 EST Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 01:07:01 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Navaho (was: version declaration for le lojbau) X-To: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: actually, remember that Zipfean 'le'avla', or whatever we call them will eventually lose the rafsi classifiers in some cases. The words with class- ifoers are type 3 le'avla, and we have no approved type 4 words yet without classifiers since I doubt that anyone wants to commit to any word being used enough to demand it (I certainly don't). It is unclear in my mind whether name-form or borrowing form Lojbanization gives a better fit the former requires no vowels on the end, while theo latter allows vowels but requires in type 4 words that you be very very careful to avoid lujvo forms and slinkui forms. Hmm - you CAN put schwa in names though. I agree that another lujvo is acceptable to replace le'avla longer term if we can agree on one, though I contend that the policy remains that words of high frequency are allowed to drop cmavo rafsi where this shortens the word, which is the rationale permitting le'avla as it is. Certainly we do not r require abstractor cmavo and ke/bo grouping cmavo in lujvo situations. I think that the requirements for dropping 'se' are a much higher frequency, since we gave 'se' a great rafsi for the front of most words - but selyle'avla makes a 6 syllable word when most of the other common grammatical terms used in Lojban discussion are only 2 or 3 (sorry 5 syllable), and that makes dropping the 'se' justifiable unless someone can think of a reasonably common usage that would serve as an alternate interpretation for le'avla based on lebna-tavla as the underlying metaphor. I vaguely suspect that there is a better metaphor than fukpi-valsi, but maybe not one with only two terms. Something that reflects 'Lojbanization', maybe or perhaps combining two ideas: cmene-brivla (which really is the concept behind borrowing). We might while we are at it try to come up with tanru or lujvo for the 4 types of le'avla (of which type 1 is names, anyway). lojbab