From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue May 27 07:03:24 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 53726 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 14:03:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 May 2003 14:03:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 14:03:13 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19Kf2m-00071R-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:03:12 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Kf2K-0006z8-00; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:02:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 May 2003 07:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Kf1u-0006pz-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:02:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20030527140147.78546.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:01:47 PDT Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: Beginner's take on the open/closed gismu debate (was: Re: emotions) To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20030527044429.GA1170@panda.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5450 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19930 --- tk1@despammed.com wrote: > With regard to the current debate on whether gismu should be open or closed, > I am not very sure what my position is, but I think a more pernicious > problem is the tendency for some users to introduce nonce lujvo (e.g. in > Chapter 2 of "Alice in Wonderland", I see the word "camri'ojvebla" (?!?)). This is the context: i ua le cmalu krokodilo cu zengau le ky rebla si'u le djacu pe la nilos le ka camri'ojvebla i ua lei jgalu ja'a tinsa je cnici preja panra i lei cmafi'e cu se rinsa le cisma xedja ganra The reason for that lujvo has more to do with metric and rhyme than with any semantic preference. Alternative suggestions are welcome! > Perhaps it would be a good idea to require all new lujvo to be defined in > terms of existing Lojban terms _using_ _Lojban's_ _predicate_ _logic_ > _facilities_ -- among other things, this should improve the `portability' of > the Lojban language definition to other extant languages. The definition of Lojban words in Lojban itself is part of the jbovlaste project. There are already a few lujvo and gismu with definitions in Lojban. Also every cmavo already has a proposed definition waiting to be commented on. > The same strategy > may also be applicable to certain gismu, to ameliorate the bloated gismu > problem. For instance, something like this may work: > > forall x (nanmu(x) <=> (nakni(x) /\ remna(x))) Yes, although notice that nakni has three places. Probably you'd have to say something like: forall x (nanmu(x) <=> nakni(x,lo'e remna,????)) mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com