From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Oct 21 18:27:19 1996 Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA16397 ; Mon, 21 Oct 96 18:27:16 BST Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 845527119:26993:1; Thu, 17 Oct 96 05:38:39 BST Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa26756; 17 Oct 96 5:37 BST Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2774; Thu, 17 Oct 96 00:37:44 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1634; Thu, 17 Oct 96 00:37:28 EDT Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:36:28 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: lujvo morphology X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <845527068.26756.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R >Logical Language Group (LLG) wrote: > >LLG> An r/n hypen is ONLY inserted after an initial CVV rafsi, and is not >LLG> permitted anywhere else. (It is also not permitted in a CVVCCV lujvo, th >LLG> only CVV-initial lujvo that does not fall apart without it.) In short, >LLG> if the r/n is either required or forbidden - never optional. The same >LLG> is true of 'y' hyphens. > >-y- hyphens are *not* optional? Hmmm... That rule missed me. I guess >that means that the lujvo "bav+lacpu" must contain a hyphen (although >the medial consonant pair is permissible), because otherwise it would fall >apart into "ba vlacpu" (which is "ba vla+cpu"). correct. This is the last rule in the lujvo-making algorithm, sometimes called the "tosmabru test" >RU > Probably, the lujvo morphology rules are all settled and fixed at this >RU > stage in development, and my opinion will not make much of a change. >LLG> This is of course true. But as a Lojban user, you can come close to your >LLG> proposal by using only expanded forms. > >Yes, but many people will still use short rafsi in written text, which >requires people who do not know those rafsi to look them up every time. I think that you will find that people don't have to look up rafsi all that much more than they have to look up the gismu they stand for, if they are spending any significant effort in Lojban. So far as I know, I am the only person to have systematically studied the rafsi using a now-obsolete version of LogFlash, but the people now writing texts that use the short rafsi learned them pretty much the same way you will likely do so - by looking them up. I suspect, based on the LogFlash technique, that you will have to look up a given rafsio around 6 times before you get it mastered enough that you rarely have to do so again. The exact number may be more or less than 6, but not by much. >LLG> I understand. However, throughout the history of the project, there has >LLG> been a fear that excessively long lujvo would be so unaesthetically >LLG> pleasing to people actually using the language (as opposed to those talki >LLG> about using it) that some sort of haphazard abbreviation or shortening >LLG> would take place if a planned approach were not allowed for. ... >LLG> Therefore, good design in to make sure that Zipf's Law is satisfied >LLG> before we start, insofar as is possible. > >--More-- >You have certainly got a good point there. I didn't think of that. >It was a good idea to ensure a systematic way of handling this before >an unsystematic shortening would be made up by Lojban-speakers. It is >important that the language be used as precisely as possible. Actually, in pre-1979 Loglan, lujvo were made precisely by such unsystematic shortening, and people found that they couldn't learn the words. So the unsystematic technique WAS in use first, and the earlier version of Loglan suffered the consequences of having to reinvent the word-making system. This led to many people dropping out, and the start of the political squabble that eventually resulted in the split between TLI Loglan and our version. >On the other hand, other aspects of Lojban will certainly be used >differently by different speakers, which will have different opinions on >how to express certain things, e.g. I have seen (and can think of) the >following constructions: > >- sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva >- la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u >- la rik. lu mi cliva li'u >- cu'u la rik. lu mi cliva li'u > >Aren't some of these expressions ungrammatical? Still, they are being used. I don't think any are ungrammatical. They have different denotations but connote the same thing. (Rick says:) I leave. Rick says, "I leave". Rick, "I leave". Said by Rick, "I leave" In the latter two, the relation between the two sumti is unspecified and therefore could be something other than the obvious in some contexts. The first two correspond to two different styles of reporting conversation in English - the first is used in printed drama, and the second is used in narrative that includes reported statements. The latter two occur in colloquial English with particles that mark the colloquial - my daughter might say "And Rick's, like, "I'm leaving". And Jane's, like "Go ahead". lojbab