Message-Id: <199601190610.IAA28726@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 19 Jan 1996 01:07:24 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: le'ala'ezo PLI clani lujvo
To:         dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1024
Lines: 22

>> There is also the undercurrent, which is getting me nervous - that all words
>> need to be 2 or 3 syllables.
>...
>> Lojban content words are going to be
>> PREDOMINANTLY 3, 4, 5 or 6 syllables.
>
>Then again, it is not necessary to go overboard and have multiple lujvo for
>every sense of every word.  I was thinking about how to translate "wax and
>wane" (in the lunar sense).  I came up with light-source-surface-increase
>"tergu'isfeze'a" and light-source-surface-decrease "tergu'isfejdika".  The
>fact is this is completely over-the-top.  In almost all contexts "zenba" and
>"jdika" suffice.  Hence, "lo lunra cu za'i zenba je jdika".


It is true that this simplification will work in nearly all instances where
we use "wax" and "wane
, but I suspect that there will be times when someone might want the more
exact word.  Of course it will be seldome enough that the use of a 6 syllable
word will be Zipfeanly appropriate, unlike the two monosyllables for these
relatively uncommon words in modern English.

lojbab