From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <95790.9408022121@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: current cmene project
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sun, 31 Jul 94 23:24:52 D.) <199408010324.AA26967@access1.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 94 22:21:06 +0100
Status: RO

Lojbab:
> I will NOT make the 
> commitment to come up with unique fu'ivla for every possible town name in the 
> world so as to make them all unique referents.  

I didn't suggest you should make such a commitment. I suggested that
if people are going to the trouble of coming up with cmevla for cities,
we'd be better off if they came up with (type 3) fuhivla instead.

> Since I don;t want to tie up all fu'ivla space with namess-as-they-are,
> giving rpeference to thoise the existing skewed set of Lojbanists think are 
> important, this would be unwise as a general policy.  

Fuhivla space is enormous. What else would you want to call "tcadrlondonu"
but London (England)? London Ontario? - Make that "tcadrlondono". 
Parsimony can be taken too far.

> In addition, we still haven;t addressed the problem of non-consensus  of
> pronunciation as it affects Lojbanization.  The names that will appear
> in the dictionary will be VERY CLEARLY indicated as examples and proposals.
> They will have some prescriptive nature merely because they are mentioned
> in the dictionary, but I have no intention of letting a rather hurried
> ad hoc effort determine the shape of a large chunk of the language word space
> forever.  

It is a propotionally tiny chunk. And you could include tentative
fuhivla in the dictionary: as you are always saying, usage will
ultimately determine whether they catch on.

----
And