From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412071834.AA16085@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: lo terspu be la Nik. .e la Xorxes .e la Goran Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 13:34:58 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199412070300.AA16661@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Dec 7, 94 01:28:51 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1428 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 7 13:35:28 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la .and. cusku di'e > > > XU do doi Nik. penmi le selnei gihe pendo vau be mi beho pohu lehi kosta > > > gehu ku la melbi borno tcadu ckule bantadni stura? > > > > la melbi borno ???? > > (to noi ciska to'o la pitsi burgo toi) > > One of the many likeable features of Lojban is that the grammar generates > every possible lexeme, even those with no sense. "borno" "pitsi" and > "burgo" are gismu & are grammatical - the only problem is they haven't > been assigned a sense. But within a la-sumti, this doesn't really > matter. I think this claim is false, or if true, is true only in an extended sense of "grammatical". A form like "*la melbi borno" is generated by the Lojban grammar only in the sense that "*the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" is generated by the English grammar: both forms are fine on the syntactic and morphological levels, but happen to use words that aren't in the lexicon. Lojban tolerates extensibility in the lexicon, but not among words of phonological shape CVCCV or CCVCV; the list of those is fixed. "borno" is not a word of Lojban; it could have been a word of Lojban in a closely related possible world, but that's quite a different claim. (In other words, I consider "zoi borno scritchifizsted borno" to be ungrammatical, although the current machine parser accepts it happily.) -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.