From phma@webjockey.net Sat May 24 09:29:12 2003
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 5050 invoked from network); 24 May 2003 16:29:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 May 2003 16:29:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 May 2003 16:29:11 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12)
	id 19JbtP-0005CP-00
	for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:29:11 -0700
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19JbtE-0005BS-00; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:29:01 -0700
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 19Jbsw-00058f-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 09:28:42 -0700
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 42B5A44A7; Sat, 24 May 2003 16:28:11 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: dis
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:28:10 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <7FC7B245-8DD5-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> <200305240751.29472.phma@webjockey.net> <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030524152229.GA98255@allusion.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200305241228.10735.phma@webjockey.net>
X-archive-position: 5379
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net
Precedence: bulk
X-list: lojban-list
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19859

On Saturday 24 May 2003 11:22, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> Why?
>
> What is with this thought that gismu are somehow privledged brivla?
> This is the same thing that makes people assert that all cultures
> should have gismu, instead of some with gismu and some with lujvo.
>
> If you're talking about rafsi, go use zei.  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?

I repeat, I did not invent {parji}. Go ask whoever did. I did invent {zmase}, 
because "-ase" is a common suffix.

> 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}.

phma
-- 
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.