Message-Id: <m0qV43A-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 1 Aug 1994 13:42:46 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: current cmene project
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1109
Lines: 28

la lojbab cusku di'e

> world so as to make them all unique referents.  Thus, I would be prone to
> define something like "tcadrlondono" as x1 is a city named "London" or
> something similar in pronunciation, in location (gugde/jecta) x2.  That is as

...

> Actually, I'll amend that - if I want to make it coinsistent with the gismu
> varieties of "names".  It would be
>
> x1 pertains to the city called "London" or something similar at location
> x2 in aspect x3
>
> since the culture words are uniformly "pertains to" rather than "is a".

Is there any policy on this? How can you tell that {tcadrlondono} is a culture
word? "tcadr-" suggests that it is a city. Isn't it better to assume that the
place structure of a fu'ivla of this type is given by the place structure
of the leading gismu? For the London "culture word" I think {britrlondono} is
much better.

Also: Is there any reason for the final o? If the original word doesn't
end in a vowel, I suggest using the final vowel of the leading gismu, to
make things more standard, so we'd have {tcadrlondonu}, {tcadrbeidjinu},
but {tcadnroma}.

Jorge