Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 04:56:30 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: zo tosmabru cu smuni ma
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKPGXCUPOI0007R1@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1053
Lines: 21

"tosmabru" doesn't mean anything in current Lojban.  It was JCB's classic
example of an invalid word of that form in old Loglan (and may not have
any meaning in current TLI Loglan either, for all I know).  As an invalid word,
it has no meaning and hence cannot be "translated" from old Loglan to new
Loglan.  In any case it had become an English-jargon word for that class of
Loglan words long before we started with Lojban and I have been unable to
use a purely Lojban example consistently to replace it.

Likewise "slinkui"/"paslinkui" was the classic Loglan example of an improper
form for a fu'ivla (borrowing), and we Lojbanized it to "slinku'i" but I
have never looked to see if the rafsi of "paslinku'i" form anything sensible.


An overabiding sense of history and tradition tends to reside in Lojbanists
who date from the TLI period, which may or may not cause problem when we
try to cope with issues like the logical scope stuff - where JCB did a
moderately good surface analysis but never delved into how rules interact
in his books.

lojbab