From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Feb 22 15:49:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 23:48:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 93874 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 23:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 23:48:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 00:49:30 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([209.8.89.72]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1MNmMl73695; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:48:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010222181142.00bda970@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:52:11 -0500 To: Nick Nicholas , lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] nilbroda In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010221145922.00b0ff00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.2.20010216215932.00af0130@127.0.0.1> <01021620541401.20721@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5579 At 01:05 AM 02/22/2001 -0800, Nick Nicholas wrote: > >>and it's good for > >>predictability to leave the open-ended places till last. (For the same > >>reason, I wanted the comparandum of traji to be x2, not x4.) But of course > >>the book takes priority, > >You wrote that particular section of the book, so I figured you would know > >why you wrote the convention oppositely from what you actually did. > >It's an exaggeration to say that I wrote it, Not at all. > but like I said, we have two >conflicting principles: predictability, and place ordering following >relative salience. I'd rather the first prevail, but realistically >acknowledge it (usually) won't. What I'd decided and/or articulated in '93, >I couldn't tell you, and I doubt it's important enough to pore through the >archives. Your lujvo paper is easy to find. Section 5.0: >5.0. NU-based lujvo. >Lujvo based on a {nu} rafsi and a gismu need to have regular place structures, >because there are so many lujvo which can be made, and so little information >in the veljvo to help decide the place structure on any other basis. Such >a regular place structure has already been suggested in _ju'i lobypli_ >for {nu}, reflecting the veljvo place structure, and can easily be >generalised >for all rafsi of grammeme NU: >{nunbroda}: n1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 >{dumbroda}: d1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 d2 >{jezbroda}: j1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 j2 >{kambroda}: k1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 >{lizbroda}: l1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 l2 >{mufbroda}: m1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 >{nilbroda}: n1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 n2 >{puvbroda}: p1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 p2 >{sizbroda}: s1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 s2 >{suvbroda}: s1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 s2 >{zazbroda}: z1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 >{zumbroda}: z1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 z2 Obviously you didn't look at the place structures you had concocted when you wrote this. But it's OK, a foolish consistency and all that ... lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org