Message-Id: <199309250602.AA12457@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Sat, 25 Sep 1993 02:01:13 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      response on lujvo-making
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

Nick wrote last month:

>From: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Nick Nicholas)
>Subject: Re: Some how do you say it's
>Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 21:29:36 +1000 (EST)
>To Logical Language Group respond I thus:
>#Not to say that I favor or disafavor it as a solution, why does kabryselmre
>#require a measuring agent place.  If it isn't interesting leave it out - it
>#is a lujvo, after all.
>
>I learn more about lujvo --- and my attitude towards them --- every day.

This was my argument that we are still probably premature in being
prescriptive about lujvo places.  If YOU, who have analyzed the problem
the most, are having your attitudes change day by day with relatively
little competing analyses from the rest of us laggards, what will happen
when we get a group of people all of whom know and use the language as
well as you do, but who might have different analyses, on the order of
the current ZAhO discussion.  At that point, we will either be stuck
with a prematurely set in concrete status quo, or some people like you
who have sunk a lot of work into a particular analysis are going toourse result
 in suggesting a different lujvo.
...

>Thus in brulu'i, I have le lumci cu brulu'i le se lumci --- I leave out
>the te lumci, because we know it to be a broom, and if we need to name
>it explicitly, we can just say le lumci cu lumci le se lum lujvo, but think
 that is a rare occuramce, and proibably theple actually do...

>I have indeed favoured the throw-the-place out attitude, but I'm rather
>more hesitant to apply it to tertanru in the veljvo.  The reasoning is
>that a kabyselmre is a selmre is a se merli, and a se merli must have a
>merli.  The attitude I've taken is that, if you have to delete a
>tertanru place, and it's not because it overlaps with a seltanru place
>(Lean Lujvo), then I'm using the wrong tertanru.

..., which might of course result in suggesting a different lujvo.
...

>Thus in brulu'i, I have le lumci cu brulu'i le se lumci --- I leave out
>the te lumci, because we know it to be a broom, and if we need to name
>it explicitly, we can just say le lumci cu lumci le se lum lujvo, but think
 that is a rare occuramce, and proibably the
omission of the place is sufficently important that we would WANT to
have it made explicit in the lujvo that we are doing something
nonstandard woth the lujvo.

lojbab