From lojbab@lojban.org Sat May 24 10:17:43 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 74027 invoked from network); 24 May 2003 17:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 May 2003 17:17:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 May 2003 17:17:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19JceM-0007dW-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:17:42 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19JceG-0007dD-00; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:17:36 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 10:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakemtao02.cox.net ([68.1.17.243]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Jce6-0007co-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:17:27 -0700 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.100.92.1]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030524171656.GXUV24359.lakemtao02.cox.net@bob.lojban.org> for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:16:56 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030524131439.06b68880@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:16:29 -0400 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions In-Reply-To: <200305241228.10735.phma@webjockey.net> References: <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net> <7FC7B245-8DD5-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> <200305240751.29472.phma@webjockey.net> <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 5384 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Robert LeChevalier Reply-To: lojbab@lojban.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19864 At 12:28 PM 5/24/03 -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: >On Saturday 24 May 2003 11:22, Jordan DeLong wrote: > > 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. Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla > > are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than > > the others. > >Not true. Some fu'ivla have rafsi (proposed); all gismu except {brod(i,o,u)} >have rafsi; some gismu have short rafsi. So {malgaci zei smani} cannot be >shortened, but {glauka zei cnebo} can be shortened to {glaukyne'o}, and >{xamgu zei zmadu} can be shortened to {xagmau}. Why is it important that infrequently used jargon words have very short forms? It was part of the Loglan design strategy that infrequently used words would tend to be longer than frequently used words, based on Zipf's Law. 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