From lojban+bncCNCCoMTMDhDe_sTyBBoEp0UaZQ@googlegroups.com Sun Aug 21 10:25:00 2011 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QvBlW-0003CX-LO; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:59 -0700 Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3sf801126gxk.16 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=M9RxLgW1XCmd3VKviBVTYgiYLS/2fsAHTpbi5h/+uF4=; b=whefsaJtoYonuH8deo/Ej5v5V18LRaXRZLm3IDsVclm1ONqAjx4z4ZqLTF5klc6/JZ Np97xRs2zobDr21Mvnu/fZ6Gq2c9xvjb6VI036xt5nsUsaR3GDrqabmRVkB5oukG8Uvs mpA2HWXDfgA/M1Ke2xaiSNlUJ6/oMtjclYAPU= Received: by 10.236.192.170 with SMTP id i30mr971083yhn.6.1313947486140; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.181.21 with SMTP id i21ls4127672anp.4.gmail; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.187.1 with SMTP id x1mr7006972yhm.8.1313947485112; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.187.1 with SMTP id x1mr7006970yhm.8.1313947485102; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b5si3667368yhe.4.2011.08.21.10.24.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.44; Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so9432702pzk.31 for ; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.203.21 with SMTP id a21mr1071916wfg.149.1313947483079; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.143.78.5 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Aug 2011 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Stela Selckiku Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:24:13 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] [PROPOSAL] Comparison To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: selckiku@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=selckiku@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Remo Dentato wrote: > > The amount the one is "more" than the other is x3 for {citmau}, x4 for > {bramau} and x5 for mojmau. That's normal generally for jvajvo. The places of the non-base parts of the lujvo get inserted all at once, which causes the remaining places of the base part of the lujvo to be advanced a random distance forward. It isn't inconsistent, but it can feel rather random in practice. You're not proposing a different lujvo place structure rule generally, are you? So I don't see what good it does to regularize this one area of lujvo in a different way? It's simply the eternal, undeniably difficult problem of reducing a tree to a list. You gotta shove that stuff somewhere and something's gonna get split up. > The downside of my proposal would be that jbovlaste would have to be > fixed (not a big task, though) and some existing text would become > incorrect (!!). That's a serious problem. We invented jvajvo, indeed the entire idea of lujvo place structures being regular at all, in order to make new lujvo easier for people to learn and understand, not just to enforce a steady consistency so we feel orderly. It's great to establish a pattern and try to follow it, but going back and changing a common word like {nelrai} is a different matter. I wouldn't expect all -rai lujvo for the rest of time to unswervingly follow *any* fixed pattern. We should be humble enough to accept the lujvo of the past as they were given, to set up some goals for the future (while accepting that in the future we'll have probably different ideas and plans and tactics and we'll change those goals), and to mostly focus on the new things that we're building at the moment, to try (if it's possible) to leave a legacy that the next generation of Lojbanists won't feel the need to try to rearrange out from under us. If {nelrai} isn't consistent enough for your taste, IMO the only appropriate remedy is simply to avoid {nelrai} for the foreseeable future, just like we ignore {dikyjvo} and {najyzme} and every other silly thing we've made over the decades. Why just yesterday someone tried to reinvent {lujyjvo} with a sensible meaning, and I had to discourage them-- not because I think the definition it was given years ago makes the most sense, indeed I've complained about it publicly myself, but just because it's already been done. We're not just building a dead language; we're building a history, literature and culture. Let the past have their fun. There's plenty of other lujvo in the sea. mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.