From xod@thestonecutters.net Wed Aug 11 15:59:40 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 17015 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2004 22:59:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Aug 2004 22:59:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2004 22:59:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv244-0005CH-IX for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv23H-0005B0-LC; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:58:35 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thestonecutters.net ([63.251.19.112] helo=chert.thestonecutters.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv235-0005Ap-3b for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:58:23 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p78-77.acedsl.com [66.114.78.77]) by chert.thestonecutters.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F33148001 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <411AA485.5010304@thestonecutters.net> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:58:13 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200408080634.18420.phma@phma.hn.org> <200408111625.03899.phma@phma.hn.org> <20040811203139.GB30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <200408111659.13332.phma@phma.hn.org> <20040811210336.GF30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040811223126.GL30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <411AA1D5.6000109@thestonecutters.net> <20040811225013.GN30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20040811225013.GN30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-archive-position: 8422 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: xod Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net Subject: [lojban] Re: The Lojban Wikipedia is up X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22842 Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:46:45PM -0400, xod wrote: > > >>Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >> >> >>>I'm a lot less averse to metaphorical lujvo now that I've created a >>>whole bunch of them *complete* *with* *place* *structure*. Doing so >>>makes it obvious that Lojban words are more defined by place >>>structure than keyword, and that anything that has the place you want >>>is The Right Choice. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I hear this often, touted as a profound observation, but what does it >>mean? That we should pay attention to all the keywords instead of just >>one? >> >> > >It means that every single place is important, and that a brivla is a >relation between all those things, and that no subset of that can be >treated as the whole definition. > > It really doesn't get us any further from the tyranny of the English Keyword. And the keywords do decrease in importance, as we go down the line, making the first one most important, so in isolation it is an approximation of the lujvo itself. The following keywords simply modify it. >>>I still think ralcku is asinine, though. mutmi'i I mind a lot less >>>than I used to, although I think it's rarely the best choice for >>>"software" (too broad). >>> >>> >>Lujvo should focus primarily on use-function -- how it appears to the >>user -- as opposed to technical precision. >> >> > >As long as two lujvo are more-or-less the same number of syllables, I >*utterly* disagree. > > It's like saying a pen is "a small cylinder with one messy end" instead of "like a pencil, only with ink". One is more literal, but the other is a whole lot more useful. -- Which of the two millionaire Yale Bonesmen do you support? If you believe in an aggressive foreign policy, vote for the one who avoided combat service. If you're against military adventurism, then vote for the man who is proud of his service in an imperialist war.