Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id RAA10826 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 17:27:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199601202227.RAA10826@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 02C376A0 ; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 4:24:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 01:07:24 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: le'ala'ezo PLI clani lujvo X-To: dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1024 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 22 00:17:26 1996 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU >> 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