From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun May 25 03:53:17 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 64522 invoked from network); 25 May 2003 10:53:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 May 2003 10:53:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 May 2003 10:53:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19Jt7t-00048a-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 25 May 2003 03:53:17 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Jt7g-00048G-00; Sun, 25 May 2003 03:53:04 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 25 May 2003 03:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Jt7T-00047z-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 03:52:51 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E75031E8E for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 13:52:16 +0300 (EEST) Received: from bilkent.edu.tr (neo.fen.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.97.69]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053EA31E7B for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 13:52:15 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <3ED09EE4.70107@bilkent.edu.tr> Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 13:45:56 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions References: <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net> <20030524204047.76659.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> <20030525000203.GA2398@allusion.net> In-Reply-To: <20030525000203.GA2398@allusion.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020531 X-archive-position: 5388 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: robin From: robin Reply-To: robin@bilkent.edu.tr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19868 Jordan DeLong wrote: >On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:40:47PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > >>la djordan cusku di'e >> >> >>>What is with this thought that gismu are somehow privledged brivla? >>> >>> >>They are somehow privilidged. It is rather obvious that they are, >>from the point of view of the morphology. >> >> > >They are not. They have different behaviors (or they wouldn't be >different classes). But none is privledged. > >If I need a brivla that expresses some predicate relation, it does >not matter what type of word it is. > >[...] > > >>>If you're talking about rafsi, go use zei. >>> >>> >>But zei-words don't quite feel like words. >> >> >[...] > >Well, that's probably because they aren't words. But so what? > > > >>I'm not even sure they >>are defined as a single word in terms of lojban. Can they be used as >>the word delimiter for zoi, for example? Can they be quoted with >>zo? (Maybe the answer is yes, but it is not at all intuitive.) >> >> > >ZEI is parsed in the tanru rules, so no. > >[...] > > >>>I think this all rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of lojban >>>word classes. People like to think about gismu, cmavo and lujvo. >>>But it's actually brivla, cmavo and cmene. >>> >>> >>Morphologically, the classes are gismu, cmavo, lujvo, fu'ivla and cmene. >> >> > >Right. > > > >>Syntactically, the classes are BRIVLA, CMENE, KOhA, A, BAI, TAhE, VAU, etc... >> >> > >I.e. brivla, cmavo and cmene, as I mentioned. > >[...] > > >>>Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla >>>are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than >>>the others. >>> >>> >>If that were so, then why all the fuss when a new gismu is proposed, >>but no fuss when a new lujvo or fu'ivla is proposed? >> >> > >Because the gismu list is frozen, and there's no reason to prefer >a gismu rather than another brivla. Having a good number of gismu >is desirable, to get rafsi for forming lujvo, however if we decide >we need more it needs to be because we need more for forming lujvo, >not because someone thinks that gismu are privledged and that some >concept (e.g., 'parasite') seems to be 'common' enough or 'important' >enough to deserve it, or that all cultures should be given the >supposedly privledged status. > >If you ask why it is frozen (as you no doubt will do); it would not >be smart to allow open season on gismu: the knee-jerk creation of >gismu for things which can be other brivla damage our ability to >increase rafsi for lujvo in the future (and in the process betrays >a lack of understanding about the purpose of the different types >of brivla). > > > Exactly. As for the old cultural gismu debate, the whole way cultural gismu were created was wrong, IMO, but we won't solve it by making more. I'd like to scrap all cultural gismu and use fu'ivla, but it's too late for that. robin.tr -- "Hackers appear to wear black more because it goes with everything and hides dirt than because they want to look like goths." - Eric Raymond Robin Turner IDMYO Bilkent Univeritesi Ankara 06533 Turkey www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin