From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jul 24 01:11:29 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 23956 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2004 08:11:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jul 2004 08:11:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2004 08:11:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BoHct-0005EC-KV for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:11:27 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoHcH-0005Dk-UU; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:10:50 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.194] helo=mproxy.gmail.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoHc6-0005DV-B9 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:10:38 -0700 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m68so36898rne for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.12.79 with SMTP id 79mr62811rnl; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <537d06d00407240110782d737a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:10:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII References: X-archive-position: 8317 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: philip.newton@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Philip Newton From: Philip Newton Reply-To: philip.newton@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Projects X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22740 On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 07:52:33 -0000, reverendzow wrote: > --- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:00:36 -0000, reverendzow > wrote: > > > So if glibau = gicybau = glicybangu, and these are the > > > only ways to combine glico bangu into a lujvo, > > > > They're not the only ways (glicybau comes to mind, but that's > > about it), but there are finitely many ways to combine two gismu > > into a lujvo. > > But are they all equivalent (grammatically)? To my understanding, yes, all possible ways to compose a lujvo (including with {zei}) produce words that are identical in meaning and use. > > > then I would use some sort of physical connector between the > > > two glyphs. The corresponding tanru would merely be the glyphs > > > adjacent, sans connector or cmavo. > > > > So you'd essentially use {zei} everywhere you'd want to make a > lujvo. > > {glicuzeibangu} is the way to do that, right? No, {glico zei bangu}. {zei} is a cmavo, a separate word, not a kind of rafsi (despite its nickname of "lujvo glue"). {glicozeibangu} would be a type-IV fu'ivla according to the tool vlatai. > > (An alternative might be to have logograms for rafsi, possibly based > > on the logograms for the selrafsi - for example, by having little > > strokes to show whether it's the CVC, CCV, or CVV rafsi of that > > gismu.) > > Another possibility here is the use of radicals, esp. if CVC/CCV/CVV > are similarly equivalent. Yes, I suppose - it would, in theory, be sufficient in writing to indicate "this is not the gismu {broda} but its rafsi"; the actual pronunciation could then be chosen at will. For example, the compound "rafsi-of-condi + rafsi-of-bloti" could be pronounced as any of coiblo (the "canonical" or default form due to the scoring rules), cnoblo, conblo, cnolo'i, conlo'i, coirlo'i, cnobloti, conbloti, condybloti, condylo'i, coirbloti, or condybloti (in ascending order of score). On the other hand, any two adjacent gismu with the rafsi radical would combine to a lujvo, so you'd still have to mark which ones go together - since the five rafsi A B C D E could combine as the lujvo "ABCDE", or the tanru "ABC DE" or "AB CDE", each composed of two lujvo, and the notation I'm talking about can't distinguish between the two. (All three forms would be difference, since the tanru "A B" does not mean exactly the same thing as the lujvo "AB", though it'll often have that meaning as one of its possibilities.) So just using a generic rafsi radical wouldn't be enough; you'd either have to have a glue marker or an unglue marker as well. Cheers, -- Philip Newton