From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 29 06:56:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Nov 2001 14:56:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 41340 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 14:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2001 14:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 14:56:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.a6.1d88f4b9 (4532) for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:22 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] To clarify... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12370 --part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/29/2001 6:09:42 AM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > the words themselves are > unsatisfactory (both in form, and what was chosen to be a gismu). I > remain in the lojban community to discuss the grammar as well as > offer suggestions into how the words could be better done (not just > pointing out why they are unsatisfactory). > Well, it would help it you did make clear just in what ways they are unsatisfactory. that would lead almost directly to suggestion about how they could be better done. But remember that it is a defining feature of Lojban that the gismu are constructed from the phonetic material of the corresponding concept expressions in the base languages. This limits the possibilities for change to 1) a new choice of languages (but the stats on language use have not changed much in the last 10 years), 2) a different algorithm (really?) for constructing Lojban words from those languages, 3) a different choice of words in various languages for representing the concepts (I suspect there is now the collective expertise to do something useful in that respect), and 4) choosing different concepts to begin with (maybe more semantic primes rather than high frequency -- but complex -- words). In any case, clear statements about what the obbjections or the suggestions are are much to be preferred (by the hearers and , for practical effectiveness -- though this is all moot -- by the presenter). --part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/29/2001 6:09:42 AM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:

the words themselves are
unsatisfactory (both in form, and what was chosen to be a gismu). I
remain in the lojban community to discuss the grammar as well as
offer suggestions into how the words could be better done (not just
pointing out why they are unsatisfactory).

Well, it would help it you did make clear just in what ways they are unsatisfactory. that would lead almost directly to suggestion about how they could be better done. But remember that it is a defining feature of Lojban that the gismu are constructed from the phonetic material of the corresponding concept expressions in the base languages. This limits the possibilities for change to 1) a new choice of languages (but the stats on language use have not changed much in the last 10 years), 2) a different algorithm (really?) for constructing Lojban words from those languages, 3) a different choice of words in various languages for representing the concepts (I suspect there is now the collective expertise to do something useful in that respect), and 4) choosing different concepts to begin with (maybe more semantic primes rather than high frequency -- but complex -- words). In any case, clear statements about what the obbjections or the suggestions are are much to be preferred (by the hearers and , for practical effectiveness -- though this is all moot -- by the presenter). --part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary--