Message-Id: <199602011709.TAA32420@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:46:29 -0800
Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jim Carter <jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bridi, tanru and lujvo
To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Wed, 31 Jan 96 18:58:36 EST." 
              <9602010951.AA16058@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Content-Length: 1196
Lines: 23

John Cowan replies to la .eduard. TCR,lin.:

> > Can we define lujvo explicitly on the fly as a sort of extensible
> > pro-bridi, as we make definitions in mathematics or carry out relational
> > operations against a DBMS, or do we have to go through a formal procedure
> > and haggle over the details each time? ...

> It is a tanru, rather than a lujvo, which is Humpty-Dumpty-esque.  The
> point of lujvo is to freeze useful interpretations about which there is,
> or ought to be, consensus.

In this case I think John's "no" really means "yes" :-)  For lujvo
there is a set of design guidelines whereby independent speakers can
generate lujvo which can reasonably be expected to be understood as
intended.  They are organized enough that it is feasible to generate
lujvo "on the fly".  See the recently posted lujvo paper for details.
Recourse to the "lojban academy" for defining lujvo place structures is
discouraged.

James F. Carter        Voice 310 825 2897       FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet;  6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA  90095-1555
Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu (finger for PGP key)
UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc