From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sat May 24 13:41:48 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 38597 invoked from network); 24 May 2003 20:41:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 May 2003 20:41:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 May 2003 20:41:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19Jfpr-0008Ut-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:41:47 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19JfpY-0008Ua-00; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:41:28 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 13:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19JfpO-0008UR-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:41:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20030524204047.76659.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.5.223] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:40:47 PDT Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5385 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: 19865 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. > This is the same thing that makes people assert that all cultures > should have gismu, instead of some with gismu and some with lujvo. Yes. > If you're talking about rafsi, go use zei. But zei-words don't quite feel like words. 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.) > If you're talking about > word length, many lujvo have only 2 syllables, and 3 is totally > fine (hell "parasite" is 3 in english). What advantage could you > possibly see for it being a gismu? Well, if it's a gismu you don't have to worry about possible misinterpretations of grouping, for example. If you form a lujvo with a gismu by adding another gismu, there is no possible grouping ambiguity. If you do it with a two-part lujvo, then you have to use brackets to make sure. Not that this is the main advantage of gismu, but it is one. > 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. Syntactically, the classes are BRIVLA, CMENE, KOhA, A, BAI, TAhE, VAU, etc... (The Book weirdly compares Lojban morphological classes with English syntactic classes.) > 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? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com