Received: from access3.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA13743 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:39:20 -0400 Received: by access3.digex.net id AA22011 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:39:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:39:18 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199408040539.AA22011@access3.digex.net> To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: current cmene project Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Aug 4 01:39:23 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab UC> > So how do you come up with 30-odd variations on a name to get unique UC> > fu'ivla? And why bother, when you can arbitraily add a conventional plac UC> > to each one that is a "location", or make some other adjustment. UC> UC> Because your version of the meaning of 'tcadrlondonu' implies that UC> 'city named "london"' is a significant & worthwhile category. I UC> don't think it is. (And the definition wd be fraught with problems UC> - called 'London' by who?, 'London' defined graphologically, or UC> phonologically, or what?) Since you need a place defining what you mean by the city name anyway, I think this would be covered in said place. I mean, is London refering to metropolitan London (as most Americans would use it, and I suspect you are as well), or the little enclave downtown that I recall is what is run by the incorporated city (my memory on this may be faulty, but I recall that the UK governement is actually in Westminster which is not part of incorparated London, and I think I remember seeing signs about "London city limits" when I was downtown. If we are Lojbanizing phonologically, then obviously the fu'ivla and the cmevla refer to things that Lojbanize to that string of Lojban letters (and also including things that Lojbanize to "londonu" or whatever the final-vowel added referent is. UC> > I dfon;t want to make technical decisions regarding names and fu'ivla UC> > for this first dictionary - just give some useful examples that will a) UC> > defuse the cultural gismu question by proving that we can handle non-cult UC> > gismu cultures as needed and b) shoe people how to make names and fu'ivla UC> > if they need to. UC> UC> I accept this - I've just been trying to point out how misguided you UC> are (zoho - honest!). Of course we are misguided %^). That is why I want to pass the buck to the community to screw up the job of Lojbanizing. It is much harder to pin blame on the speaking community (if you are a linguist, that is) - I've never heard a linguist tell a language speaker that their language was bolluxed up because something was done illogically according to the pet theories of the day. lojbab