From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed May 28 11:54:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 20059 invoked from network); 28 May 2003 18:54:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 May 2003 18:54:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 May 2003 18:54:32 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19L64G-0008DA-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:54:32 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19L63v-0008Cq-00; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:54:11 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 May 2003 11:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19L63m-0008Ce-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:54:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20030528185331.15770.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:53:31 PDT Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 11:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030528001252.03c6d420@pop.east.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5492 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: 19973 la lojbab cusku di'e > >But none of those would be 1-placers. (And in any case, why would > >exptal gismu differ from fu'ivla in this respect?) > > Precisely the question. fu'ivla are second rate not-quite-lojban words, > usually concocted on the fly without a lot of thought because they were > needed to talk about things in an area of specialty. gismu are the > fundamental roots of the language, supposedly the most carefully reviewed > area of the language. I want to keep the distinction quite clear. lujvo > are greatly preferred to fu'ivla even at the expense of length because they > are internal to the language, and are capable of being analyzed for a > predicted place structure, even if usage does not necessarily abide by > jvojva. The fu'ivla that go into the dictionary should not be concocted on the fly, they should be given as much consideration as the other words in the dictionary. And they are fully lojban words, despite their origin as borrowings. Other than that, I agree with the above, which does not require gismu to be a definitively closed class. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com