From ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Mon Aug 2 14:20:59 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:20:57 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2406; Mon, 02 Aug 93 14:19:52 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4854; Mon, 02 Aug 93 14:21:21 EDT Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:19:09 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: Re: 'Letteral' (Was: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, Logical Language Group To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sun, 01 Aug 93 00:20:04 EDT.) <9308021032.AA85579@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: Lojbab writes: > "Complex" is only mildly less gross for "lujvo" - though And > obviously thinks it an appropriate gloss %^). I will own that And is bolshy & stubborn and truly exhibits many of the properties attributed to him from time to time by Lojbab, but knowing And as well as I may justly claim to do, I cannot see why he would think "complex" an appropriate gloss for "lujvo". True, lujvo are complex, but so is language, and And does not think "complex" a good gloss for "bangu" either. He does, however, think that a good gloss for "lujvo" is "compound word", and "bound morpheme" a good gloss for "rafsi". On a straight choice between "glyph" and "letteral" as a gloss for "lerfu" he prefers the former, because altho it is a rare English word it is known beyond lei lojbo prenu, but he holds that "grapheme" might be considered as a useful though not wholly accurate gloss. However, he suggests that "lerfu" be extended beyond visual marks, that it may encompass "phoneme", with "glyph" then expressed by some lujvo formed from "lerfu". ---- mihelahozdu. And zdu.