From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jan 05 11:43:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 80199 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2006 19:43:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2006 19:43:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2006 19:43:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Euay7-0003DU-7X for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:40:15 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EuaxF-0003Bq-BN; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:39:28 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Euawq-0003Au-Cu for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:38:56 -0800 Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.119]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Euawn-0003Ak-CC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:38:56 -0800 Received: (qmail 70801 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jan 2006 19:38:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20060105193849.70799.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.158.161] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:38:49 PST Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:38:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560601051042u6fad87f1n6210f25cf012e659@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-archive-position: 11003 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: stage 1 and 2 non-fu'ivla X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=oSWdHJEI103sAHW5I6HaH4dEWZSBOdNaoPjBfPYrlOKDoYs6BQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25402 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:31:30AM -0300, > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > > > I think cmevla should be a class of brivla. > > > > Yes, but you're a crazy person. > > That may or may not be the case, but it doesn't > really address > the issue. > > Lojban already treats common nouns as > predicates, so extending > this to proper nouns is only natural. It could > be argued that grouping > common nouns with verbs and adjectives rather > than with proper > nouns is crazier than what I propose. > That "cow", say, is a noun in English (and similar words in spanish, etc.), rather than a verb or adjective or some other grammatically defined category ("full" rather than "empty", "living" rather than "dead" -- although these are arguably less purely grammatical) is an accident of the history of the langauge. Other languages -- and not just Lojban and kin -- do it differently. The same is true (to a somewhat lesser extent) of the forms used to identify individuals, which may turn up in almost any class in some language (insofar as classes can be correlated across languages). Lojban tries to have the form classes match the logical categories (of a particular logic, but one developed in common-noun languages)and in that system common nouns are more like adjectival predicates and verbs (indicate membership in extensible classes) than like proper nouns (identify individuals). Of course, Lojban cmevla can indicate several individuals and thus possibly an extensible class, but it seems always to be a class defined (somewhat ciruclarly) by reference to the cmevla, "those called c." All of which is an objection to xorxes' way of putting the case. The case, however, is not without merit. Brivla can already occur wherever a cmevla can (well, I think vocative uses always require {doi} or the like, so a bare brivla will be taken usually in a non-vocative way). On the other hand, there are cases where it would be handy to use cmevla in brivla places. We can say "a Ford car" or "a Nixon trick" or the like by a variety of periphrases, but ({me} having been highjacked for other -- already covered -- purposes -- and even it was a less than direct approach) Lojban lacks the economy of English (etc.). And at least some of the often useful vagueness: most Lojban expression to cover this sort of thing have to be relatively precise about how the name (that is, things so named) fit into description (or the situation being described)and that is not always (indeed, often not) easy to specify on the fly (or after some thought, even). Someplace around there was a suggestion to use {iy} and {uy} to bracket cmevla -- or indeed any bit of language (any language) -- to function as a predicate (and so as a cmene -- this started, I think, in trying to deal with Indian (feather not dot) names like "Afraid of horses" and then extended to dealing with the first few stages of absorbing "foreign" words into Lojban as a quick way of dealing with temporary adoptions on the fly). In short, while combining "common nouns" with verbs and adjectives rather than proper nouns is not crazy, neither is combining proper nouns with those same verbs and adjectives. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.