From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Jul 24 00:32:57 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56474 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2004 07:32:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jul 2004 07:32:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2004 07:32:56 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BoH1a-0004ai-TF for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:32:55 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoH0b-0004a3-J4; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:53 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.196] helo=mproxy.gmail.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoH0Q-0004Zk-8Y for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:42 -0700 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m68so36499rne for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.90.17 with SMTP id n17mr28092rnb; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <537d06d0040724003156531e7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:31:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII References: X-archive-position: 8313 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: 22736 On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:00:36 -0000, reverendzow wrote: > --- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton wrote: > > It would certainly need to allow people to differentiate > > between lujvo and tanru; "glibau" is not the same as > > "glico bangu". (It *is* the same as "gicybau" or "glicybangu", > > though, by definition, so one notation could conceivably > > represent either.) > > 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. > 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. I had considered the problem as well, and this seemed to be the obvious solution to combining kanji yet allowing you to distinguish between tanru and lujvo. It didn't strike me as very pretty, though. (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.) > > > I have come up with ka'eserafsi, although my construction > > > may be flawed, > > > > That falls apart into the three words "ka'e se rafsi". "da ka'e se > > rafsi" seems to me to mean something like "X can be a word > > which has rafsi". But only gismu and some cmavo have rafsi; > > brivla in general do not. (The lujvo composed of "ka'e se rafsi" > > would be "ka'erselrafsi", FWIW.) > > My intent of a literal translation was "X has the ability to be the > meaning of a rafsi". And (I think) I would prefer lo over da in this > instance. So "lo ka'erselrafsi", perhaps? Comparing {lo} and {da} is comparing apples and onions. {lo ka'erselrafsi} is a sumti: "a word which can have rafsi"; {da ka'erselrafsi} is a complete bridi and means "X can have rafsi". (If that's what the lujvo {ka'erselrafsi} means.) mu'o mi'e .filip. -- Philip Newton