Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM ([205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id MAA03200 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 12:45:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199511021745.MAA03200@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E10312B0 ; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:37:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 12:34:31 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Ethnic Gismu, Learning X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 3 22:37:22 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Giuliano: > >In any case, I really don't see much difference between Esperanto mal- and > >Lojban tol-. > The matter, I think, is more complex: it involves the role of composition > and derivation in language. Lojban does not make use of derivation: in > principle, you shouldn't have Esperanto-style affixes at your disposal. But the fact is that we do. {tolbroda} is always {to'e broda}, which is a derivation of {broda}. There are not many clear affixes like this one, but there are some. (e.g. nal-, sel-, etc) > Lojban does make use of composition instead: lexical composition in lujvo, > phrasal composition in tanru. The reasons usually given for the necessity of > composition are practical in nature: to avoid tanru (and, in a lesser > extent, lujvo), you should employ clumsy wordings, which would make > sentences lengthy. That's how I see it too, but it doesn't explain all lujvo. > My opinion is that a logical language should give up composition too > entirely: tanru should not be an option, and function words (even very > generic ones, with argument structures of the type x1 is relative to x2) > should be used instead. Yes, or at least it should have as clear rules of composition as possible. Lojban has tended towards that, but lujvo making is still quite chaotic. > As to adjective-like tanru (e.g. 'blanu drudi'), I > think that the standard treatment in Montague semantics (something like 'x1 > is a roof & x1 is blue') could work as well. In that case you can make it clear by using {je}: {blanu je drudi}. {blanu drudi} will probably be understood as that too, but {drudi blanu} probably not. > Please do your remarks; I am an absolute beginner to lojban, and surely I > miss something, or even the point. Not at all, I think the topic of lujvo making needs a lot more discussion. Jorge