From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Jun 1 00:49:54 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 10:52:03 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1238; Tue, 01 Jun 93 10:51:03 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1819; Tue, 01 Jun 93 10:49:54 EDT Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 07:49:54 -0700 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Subject: Re: dikni-tanru X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 May 93 10:51:31 PDT." <9305291826.AA02323@julia.math.ucla.edu> Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: fschulz@PYRAMID.COM writes: > jimc wants a semantic analyzer to have some chance of > interpreting tanru using dikni-tanru rules. I have looked > at my own usage and I see at least 4 types of tanru operators. > ... 4) language incompetence > For me, the major usage is type 4. Actually, languages grow by being stretched to fit new situations. In Lojban the planned growth mechanism is to have people build new cliche-type tanru, which are converted to lujvo. This process will feel like "linguistic incompetence" when the speaker cannot use existing vocabulary to express his thoughts, but the "fault" is as much in the language as in the speaker (for not knowing possibly existing prior usage). If there were simple diktanru and dikyjvo rules that people could be taught, the available vocabulary would jump an order of magnitude, and people wouldn't have to work so hard, or feel so unsure of themselves, when using tanru / lujvo, particularly the common kinds. The advantage at the semantic level is similar to the advantage of using rafsi to build the lujvo words, at the morphological level. -- jimc