From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat May 20 17:08:26 1995
Date:         Sat, 20 May 1995 17:08:48 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Quantifiers (was Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality)
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <4BabFNiUyhL.A.l5E.9t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk writes:
 > Dilyn:
(In English, that's "Dylan".)
 > > Even now, in the dark moment
 > > of despair, I see glimmers of light and rumors of change.  The {ke'a}
 > > proposal is gaining momentum
 >
 > Jorge & I spent a long time discussing that. I think I remain unconvinced
 > that it is a Good Thing, because I don't know how to rewrite it into
 > logical form. I shall look on at developments.

Have you looked at my recent note on the subject?  I rewrote it using
other Lojban constructions, which you presumably know how to write in
logical form.

 > > ("butters parsnips"?)
 >
 > "Fine words butter no parsnips".

.i xu lo'e matne genjrparsni ku'u da na'o cidja

 > >  > My ambition is to look back in my dotage and tell my grandchildren
 > >  > "See that cmavo? It was me that got it into the language"
 > >
 > > Ah, foolish youth.  With age you will learn to hope instead to
 > > _remove_ cmavo from the language.
 >
 > I like big vocabs. I like English. I agree with Jorge that lovely
 > cmavo are squandered on uses of which one would never wish to
 > avail oneself, while very useful cmavo languish with CVhV cmavo
 > for which I have an irrational but nonetheless implacable antipathy,
 > but on the other hand, Jorge has vowed not to learn the cmavo he
 > disapproves of (a resolution he will no doubt inadvertently fail
 > to uphold), and many learners will consciously or unconsciously
 > follow his example. It certainly gives me an excuse for remembering
 > so few.

I agree:  English has a wonderfully rich vocabulary that I enjoy using.
But you've got to realise that it's very unusual; I believe it has the
largest vocabulary of any living language, and ranks up there among dead
ones, too.  (Sanskrit has a larger vocabulary, I believe.  Any others?)
But a large vocabulary isn't going to come out of thin air from
dictionary definitions; we need lots of texts to create a vocabulary,
and probably a good thousand years to match English.

Most cmavo (attitudinals excepted) are pretty colorless and {pe'i} don't
contribute to the rich structure of a language in the same way, say, a
good lujvo or a creative (but appropriate) use of a gismu would.

Also, they're dense enough as it is in the limited name space available.
I find it a little disturbing that almost any word of the right form I
put together will have some meaning.

 > >  > (One giant
 > >  > leap for man, one small step for mankind), and they'll look on me not
 > >  > with pity but with great awe and reverence, thereafter boasting to
 > >  > their peers, to general gasps of iacuhi and ianai, mingled with uhe.io,
 > >  > "Ti le bahe mibrorpatfu oha oha cu cmavo se fuzme".
 > > A wonderful rant.  You won't mind if I pick one nit, will you?
 > > {patfu} should not be used metaphorically for "author, creator".
 > > Perhaps {dzena} (ancestor, elder) or {rirni} (caregiver) would be
 > > appropriate in a metaphor.
 >
 > I meant "my grandfather". I can't find my copy of the jvoste, so had
 > to invent it. Change the {rorpatfu} to whatever is standard for
 > "grandfather".

Oh, gosh, sorry.  I shouldn't interpret metaphorical meanings when there
aren't any...

--Dylan