Message-Id: <199601190608.IAA28708@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 19 Jan 1996 01:04:43 -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'ozo PLI Cultural gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1472
Lines: 28

>Yes, but there always a cultural gismu at the starting point of these lujvo
>which is then restricted.  Is it possible to boot-strap the cultural
>lujvo solely from "kulno".  For instance, "jegvo" could be replaced by
>one-god-culture (say) "pamemceiklu".  Unfortunately, it really difficult to
>imagine X-Y-Z-culture for English or the other nations.  This is what I am
>trying to get at.

OK. How about "west-europe-mountain-culture" for Swiss.  I mentioned in
another post "skoto joi glico" for modern Scots.

You are correct that there usually is some cultural gismu somewhere in the
metaphor which is built off of.  It is usually but not necessarily restrictive
modifcation, but IT NEEDN'T BE.  We as English speakers are used to
modificatyion usually being restrictive, but this is NOT the only possible
kind of tanru modification (I think this is covered in Cowans PLGS
paper, or perhaps elsewhere - it was originally in a paper by Ivan
Derzhanski, that pointed out the large range of modifications in tanru
among the world's languages.)

It may be that we are not the ones to best think of non-restrictive tanru.
But that does not mean that they cannot or should not exist.

But in any event, i WANT the language to grow via lujvo, and NOT via gismu or
fu'ivla, as much as is possible.  I will tolerate much more looseness in
lujvo-making in order to see this happen  than, say, thjose who favor dikyjvo
(algoirthmic lujvo place structures) might prefer.

lojbab