Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:27:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801091327.IAA05835@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: & howabout ? (Was Knowledge & Belief) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1073 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jan 9 08:27:52 1998 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > It is in JCB's Loglan books. I think it is mentioned in the intro chapter > of Cowan's grammer as well. Could you give an example of an exception to > what is intended to be a core principle of the language? I can't give you examples of officially & wittingly countenanced exceptions. But in our discussions of the last few weeks we have found cases where polysemy was one possible solution to certain conflicts within grammar & usage. Off the top of my head, the only one I can remember is cucli ("curious"), where the meaning of cucli various according to the grammatical properties of its sumti (sdpecifically, iirc, whether x2 is a du`u clause containing {kau}). I've not studied the baselined giu`ste thoroughly, but I suspect that there is a lot of similar polysemy. > >Steve: > >> One of the nicest properties of lojban is this "one word - one definition" > >> idea. > > > >Where is this idea articulated/prescribed? I approve of the idea, but > >sometimes it is incompatible with the (rest of the) prescription, and > >sometimes it is incompatible with usage.