From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Oct 31 12:03:23 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:03:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gezp8-00014G-N3 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:03:02 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gezp0-00013y-19 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:03:02 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so1538352ugr for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:02:52 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=jleFR576ZJYCyzpJEiil1uTc5HDqNS3dxIxdKgQKu5NcTrE+p4WSlta3FjOdlVd4BNRb8HgZXWQ2934EmDJMvP+yRMSjOWE6ZdMZF4MD71ucnfU00prOtmQGViCfH6L0Rsx8VHOyLQB+slyoWBM+7QCcxGh/qVyoaz+J/MLSYVY= Received: by 10.78.203.15 with SMTP id a15mr7399171hug; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:02:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.124.16 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:02:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:02:52 -0500 From: "Andrii (lOkadin) Zvorygin" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: reform In-Reply-To: <2d3df92a0610310357v5cf7c4a4g7c768b3a1129eb98@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10448_10831033.1162324972054" References: <2d3df92a0610310357v5cf7c4a4g7c768b3a1129eb98@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-archive-position: 12867 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: andrii.z@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_10448_10831033.1162324972054 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thank you for pointing out the fa fi, inconsitancy. I'm for removing words, but Not for narrowing the vocabulary. It's just we have a lot of words, that are just insulting, like cultural gIsmu. What about the Hungarians? On 10/31/06, HeliodoR wrote: > > > removal of ambiguous gIsmu [...] > > What's the point in removing words and narrowing the vocabulary? > I'm for removing words, but Not for narrowing the vocabulary. It's just we have a lot of words, that are just insulting, like cultural gIsmu. What about the Hungarians? It's not going to narrow your vocabulary to take out synonyms like lOjbo, we already have la lOjban. no point in having a cultural gIsmu too. Take the example of sOfto. English doesn't have a verb for every nationality, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a language with such an odd concept. If we take out things like sOfto, we might as well take out things like clIno. What will we do when lion's are extinct? Or we live on another planet? Might as well get rid of the ambiguity sooner rather than later. > change fa fe fi, to pa re ci [...] > > That's quite impossible: > {barda fi lo mlatu} means "it's big compared to a cat", whereas > {barda ci lo mlatu} means "it's big in the property of three > cats" (nonsensical enough). > Thank you very much for pointing that out, I concede > modify lUjvo to make them unambiguous [...] > > Um... In what way are they ambiguous? > Meant to say lUjvo would be modified, as they would have different rAfsi, making them less ambiguous (as it would be clear whether they come from an ambiguous rAfsi, like rArna). Also with the new rAfsi system, It would be possible to perhaps at some future date, extend lUjvo to explicitly state in the lUjvo which arguments from functional rAfsi it will be borrowing. > onomatopoeia, we have to have them, how else can you tell a knock knock > > joke.ui.u'i? > > > You're ready to change the language... to make it appropriate... for > knock-knock jokes? O_o > No, not just for knock knock jokes, but if our aim is to be at least as expressive as all other languages in the world, we should have some way of expressing sound. standard way to describe shapes > > > What do you mean exactly? > I was thinking of having maybe dimension modifiers, to indicate how many dimensions a shape is in. Anyways here is an example. say the word for geometric shape will be sOfto(tArmi seems to be something else completly, something related to Plato?) but with a different place structure: x1 is a geometric polygon with x2 (# of vertices) x3([set] with lengths of sides, can use combination of ordered/unordered, probably add in shapes you connect to here as well) x4 (in dimension(pa,re,ci,vo) will probably have to make a distinction between time and space, as is in the Standard Model) so a equalateral triangle would be sOfto li ci lo'i pa li re a rectangle with sides of 1:2 ratio would be sOfto li vo lo'i pa ce re li re and so on. I dono about circles, maybe need another gIsmu, but if i recall correctly it can be described using the same manner. > mu'o mi'e darves > -- ta'o(by the way) We With You Network at: http://lokiworld.org .i(and) more on Lojban: http://lojban.org mu'oimi'e lOkadin (Over, my name is lOkadin) ------=_Part_10448_10831033.1162324972054 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thank you for pointing out the fa fi, inconsitancy.

I'm for removing words, but Not for narrowing the vocabulary.
It's just we have a lot of words, that are just insulting, like cultural gIsmu. What about the Hungarians?

On 10/31/06, HeliodoR <exitconsole@gmail.com> wrote:
> removal of ambiguous gIsmu [...]
 
What's the point in removing words and narrowing the vocabulary?

 I'm for removing words, but Not for narrowing the vocabulary.
It's just we have a lot of words, that are just insulting, like cultural gIsmu. What about the Hungarians?
It's not going to narrow your vocabulary to take out synonyms like lOjbo, we already have la lOjban. no point in having a cultural gIsmu too.  Take the example of sOfto. English doesn't have a verb for every nationality, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a language with such an odd concept.

If we take out things like sOfto, we might as well take out things like clIno. What will we do when lion's are extinct? Or we live on another planet? Might as well get rid of the ambiguity sooner rather than later.

> change fa fe fi, to pa re ci [...]
 
That's quite impossible:
{barda fi lo mlatu} means "it's big compared to a cat", whereas
{barda ci lo mlatu} means "it's big in the property of three cats" (nonsensical enough).

Thank you very much for pointing that out, I concede

> modify lUjvo to make them unambiguous [...]

Um... In what way are they ambiguous?

 
Meant to say lUjvo would be modified, as they would have different rAfsi, making them less ambiguous (as it would be clear whether they come from an ambiguous rAfsi, like rArna). Also with the new rAfsi system, It would be possible to perhaps at some future date, extend lUjvo to explicitly state in the lUjvo which arguments from functional rAfsi it will be borrowing.

onomatopoeia, we have to have them, how else can you tell a knock knock joke.ui.u'i?

You're ready to change the language... to make it appropriate... for knock-knock jokes? O_o

No, not just for knock knock jokes, but if our aim is to be at least as expressive as all other languages in the world, we should have some way of expressing sound.

standard way to describe shapes

What do you mean exactly?

I was thinking of having maybe  dimension modifiers, to indicate how many dimensions a shape is in. Anyways here is an example.

say the word for  geometric shape will be sOfto(tArmi seems to be something else completly, something related to Plato?) but with a different place structure:

 x1 is a geometric polygon with x2 (# of vertices) x3([set] with lengths of sides, can use combination of ordered/unordered, probably add in shapes you connect to here as well) x4 (in dimension(pa,re,ci,vo) will probably have to make a distinction between time and space, as is in the Standard Model)

so a equalateral triangle would be
sOfto li ci lo'i pa li re
a rectangle with sides of 1:2 ratio would be
sOfto li vo lo'i pa ce re li re

and so on. I dono about circles, maybe need another gIsmu, but if i recall correctly it can be described using the same manner.
mu'o mi'e darves



--
ta'o(by the way)  We With You Network at: http://lokiworld.org .i(and)
more on Lojban: http://lojban.org
mu'oimi'e lOkadin (Over, my name is lOkadin) ------=_Part_10448_10831033.1162324972054-- 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.