From - Mon May 12 10:04:07 1997 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Date: Mon May 12 10:04:07 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont delayed response to Jorge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2154 Message-ID: >From: "Jorge J. Llambias" >Subject: Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont > >la markl di'e cusku >> > It is important when you create a lujvo to >> > account for all the places of the component >> > gismu, not just for their x1 places. >> >> When I did that for {gimterzbavla}, la lojbab. >> seemingly implied the opposite. > >It wouldn't be the first time lojbab and I disagreed about something. la lojbab clarifies: I did not mean to imply the opposite. I merely said that >I< feel no compulsion to account for anything. I coin lujvo on the fly without detailed analysis and USE them. I don't much care that the words be perfectly in accordance with a convention that we have strongly declared to be *optional*, especially since I suspect that we will not be able to manage/enforce that convention if indeed the language starts to take off. It is nice. in my opinion, that some people want to analyze these words using the convention techniques, perhaps suggesting alternatives. Likely, it is those alternatives that will make it into a long-term dictionary and remain there, for the simple reason that they DO have analyzed place structures. But if I were to stop and analyze every lujvo that I ever coined for "correctness", I would never get anything said. (I still plan on completing my oft-postponed translation of the Scheherezade story from Burton's Arabian Nights, and it has several lujvo per sentence). The risk of miscommunication of a stream of text (assuming sufficient context to help resolve such difficulties as I had with Mark's science-fictional coinage) does not justify it. >This is how I would interpret {gimterzbavla}: > >gimterzba [gismu te zbasu]: tz1 (tz2=g1) tz3 g2 > x1 is the material x2 used > to make a gismu for relationship x3 Your analysis omits the -vla, but then perhaps the -vla is superfluous or even incorrect since some gismu were coined using morphemes from the source languages that were not words. I would/did not misunderstand this particular lujvo coined by Mark. lojbab