From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Mon May 26 06:53:50 2003
Return-Path: <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 67236 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 13:53:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2003 13:53:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail025.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.147)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2003 13:53:49 -0000
Received: from optushome.com.au (c17354.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.214])
	by mail025.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4QDrmE12709
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 26 May 2003 23:53:48 +1000
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:53:47 +1000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: RE: Re: emotions
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <794CAC48-8F81-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
From: Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612
X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19884

To And's puzzlement, all I have to respond with is: gismu are a closed 
class. Per definitionem. If it's bullshit to introduce "kir" and "git" 
as gender-neutral pronouns in English (and it is), then it is just as 
bullshit (per definitionem) to introduce new gismu into Lojban. 
Innovating gismu is not held to the same standard as innovating lujvo, 
and if they are, then we abandon the distinction between the two, which 
is foundational to Lojban morphology. So your parallel with lexical 
innovation of nouns or verbs in English is false. Any additions to the 
gismu set must be gradual and well-considered: *obviously* gismu are 
privileged, purely in terms of morphology and productivity, and I don't 
get why anyone would argue otherwise.

And with all respect to jbovlaste, I don't see anyone expecting that 
the entirety of its contents will ever constitute a baseline 
(especially if it is to be issued in the next three years). Gismu and 
camvo are baselined. I really don't see the point in a large set of 
lujvo or fu'ivla being in a baseline. In a reference dictionary, sure. 
But I don't set on such a dictionary the canonical value I place on the 
fundamental building blocks of the language.

(This counters Bob's vision of the dictionary. But then, Bob has his 
vision, and I have mine. And I continue to think his vision naive.)

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 
****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian, University of Melbourne, 
Australia *
          nickn@unimelb.edu.au          http://www.opoudjis.net
*    "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the      
  *
   circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.   
  *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 
****