Received: from mail-lb0-f191.google.com ([209.85.217.191]:65034) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XRLtq-0008Qi-Dc; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:56:04 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f191.google.com with SMTP id w7sf382146lbi.28 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=wsQOkenRLvViFA9QVV47mDe2+IFC91+Nh9ed4hvaJmM=; b=Yq6IMZ6fv01ne0eTvwkq0XiMeDuZVdyBRDyKEaayCUDmPEuVmKE/19+wNUBVg5hx4e SMjTbAAO9LUkNyiXGB4g89BIPT/D8tnE2O4ux2KhCAoprwxLvUopXNsEREAKonaLi+6Y 40cR+LW0nOKNis/XwzTbizZbJs438sF2CY6zWHw9YwLPAsYt1d0Gvk2qNRC6qZYpMmTX JK7XRVK32DMNgIMpypyozNTVJjqAcY2DQ5bhv8AUqEePE5wHbJFx1ey9kuEJVe+O9lNJ KY5HP6i9aJwU83oYzZHSwIsF7X/DEjONWjoF9hkJWZW8SWiyzPOAsJxLROU6Zre/hQSZ Jw6g== X-Received: by 10.180.99.8 with SMTP id em8mr151768wib.15.1410270954798; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.36.52 with SMTP id n20ls261481wij.54.canary; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.73.79 with SMTP id j15mr2715652wiv.4.1410270954502; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fc7si834021wic.2.2014.09.09.06.55.54 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::232; Received: by mail-wi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id hi2so1236255wib.17 for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.82.72 with SMTP id g8mr30833801wiy.79.1410270954409; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.89.193 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 06:55:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <540F0670.5060804@gmail.com> References: <540EFD66.2080509@gmail.com> <540F0670.5060804@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:55:54 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] {gunma}, {selcmi} and gadri definitions From: Gleki Arxokuna To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9cc98624655cb0502a24baa X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Content-Length: 5338 --14dae9cc98624655cb0502a24baa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I disagree. I suggest that SEL- lujvo are always jvajvo, no cimjvo. The same goes for -gau, -zu'e, -selja'e, some other rafsi. 2014-09-09 17:53 GMT+04:00 And Rosta : > Ilmen, On 09/09/2014 14:15: > >> I don't like very much the idea of using the sel- rafsi in a >> non-compositional way, for making lujvo of the form {selbroda} whose >> meaning cannot be derived from {se broda}. It seems there's a pretty >> wide implicit agreement that the sel/ter/vel/xel rafsi should be >> regular (semantically compositional). >> > > That dislike and agreement strike me as not very rational. The principal > grammatical function of lujvo relative to phrases is to signal > noncompositionality -- a sense other than, and typically more specific > than, the sense of the unlujvoized phrasal counterpart. A secondary > function of lujvo is that sometimes they're shorter, but given that brevity > is only a marginal consideration in Lojban design, the key grammatical > characteristic of lujvohood is noncompositionality, with the rafsi having > merely a kind of mnemonic function. > > --And. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BPFK" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --14dae9cc98624655cb0502a24baa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I disagree. I suggest that SEL- lujvo are always jvajvo, n= o cimjvo.
The same goes for -gau, -zu'e, -selja'e, some other r= afsi.

= 2014-09-09 17:53 GMT+04:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>= :
Ilmen, On 09/09/2014 14:15:
I don't like very much the idea of using the sel- rafsi in a
non-compositional way, for making lujvo of the form {selbroda} whose
meaning cannot be derived from {se broda}. It seems there's a pretty wide implicit agreement that the sel/ter/vel/xel rafsi should be
regular (semantically compositional).

That dislike and agreement strike me as not very rational. The principal gr= ammatical function of lujvo relative to phrases is to signal noncomposition= ality -- a sense other than, and typically more specific than, the sense of= the unlujvoized phrasal counterpart. A secondary function of lujvo is that= sometimes they're shorter, but given that brevity is only a marginal c= onsideration in Lojban design, the key grammatical characteristic of lujvoh= ood is noncompositionality, with the rafsi having merely a kind of mnemonic= function.

--And.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--14dae9cc98624655cb0502a24baa--