From thinkit8@lycos.com Tue Nov 13 18:21:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 02:21:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 31679 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 02:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 02:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n30.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.80) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 02:21:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.98] by n30.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Nov 2001 02:21:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:21:56 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: word proposal Message-ID: <9sskg4+78ol@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1689 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.5.121.32 From: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Yahoo-Profile: thinkit41 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12114 ok, i'll explain my example better here. the gismu were not "designed" at all. they were more or less randomly made, and rafsi more or less randomly attached. because of this, we got a lot of irregularities. the book specifically mentions that many modals are irregular. a simple example: marji is ma'e because manri took ma'i. why? simply because marji and manri are both one of the few chosen modals, yet both have the same CV'V pattern. modals are one case where it's very clear that the cmavo directly corresponds to the gismu, so there really should be a regularity there. it's more or less a form of conjugation, which natural languages are mocked endlessly for their irregularity in. tenses are another. attitudinals are a bit unique, and may or may not need to correspond to gismu (although i'd rather have them all regular or all random rather than the irregular corresponding words in the refrgram). the situation is much worse with rafsi. craig, you say you like the gismu. but the fact is you have to change the gismu to redo the rafsi. for example, you could standardize on two letter cmavo adding "n" to make rafsi, and adjust gismu accordingly so you don't have conflicts (as gismu will have their own way of forming rafsi). and you can organize the gismu according to frequency of use, and make rafsi regular according to the letter it starts with (what types are assigned, and how the letters are assigned). the real point is not the specifics. it's that, if you're trying to change things to be better, do it completely. of course other languages have irregularities. but lojban is supposed to be better, right?