From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue May 27 15:39:27 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 83204 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 22:25:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 May 2003 22:25:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 22:25:48 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-56-238.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.56.238]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4953D0EC for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 00:25:46 +0200 (MEST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Digest Number 1752 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 23:25:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19948 Nick: > > From: "And Rosta" > >Jordan: > >> > cmavo is not a syntactic class, it is a morphological class > >> > >> It is also a class of syntactic classes. > > > >It doesn't strike me as a natural class of syntactic classes, since > >the only thing that those syntactic classes have in common is that > >they all have the morphological property of being expressed by > >cmavo > > .... and that they are function words and not content words. Whose > syntax may be disparate, sure, but has in common that it is not the > syntax of predicates Not-being-a-brivla is not sufficient to justify grouping cmavo together as a valid syntactic taxon. It's not an important issue for Lojban's design or prescription, but if we ever come to write a descriptive grammar of Lojban, that's what I'd be arguing. > >Message: 12 > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 11:08:36 -0400 > > From: Robert LeChevalier > Bob, I've long ago given up expecting any language work of you. When > I say "you", I am addressing fundamentalists in general I'm not sure that's fair. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that some fundamentalists are pretty industrious, especially those with names beginning with J. > >A few words like > >mango, pitsa or taksi have a special status in that they are international > >_and_ are already gismu-form without any need of adaptation. It is hard > >to resist those, since they don't even need a dictionary definition in order > >to be understood. I'm sure those will end up as part of the language in > >any case > > You underestimate the power of fundamentalism. :-) I expect they'll become a kind of slang -- the lojbo "ain't", as Michael said of "ka'enai". Used, but fiercely deprecated. --And.