Received: from access3.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA15601 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 04:56:33 -0500 Received: by access3.digex.net id AA25159 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 04:56:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 04:56:30 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412160956.AA25159@access3.digex.net> To: cbogart@quetzal.com Subject: Re: zo tosmabru cu smuni ma Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 16 04:56:36 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab "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