Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:55:03 -0500
From: Andrew Archibald <archibal@math.mcgill.ca>
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lojban qua lingua franca
Message-ID: <20040331015502.K31434@fresco.Math.McGill.CA>
References: <20040330221155.GF3964@kstat01.Math.McGill.CA> <20040330225432.76783.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20040330225432.76783.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>; from jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar on Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 02:54:32PM -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 2867

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 02:54:32PM -0800, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

> Ok, then {lo vofli be lo makfioga} is indeed more precise.
> It just seemed that "yogic flyer" in English can be about as
> imprecise as (lo makfioga vofli} in Lojban. Tanru don't imply
> a vague association, they are just a vague form of expression.
> The actual association can be quite precise, even if not=20
> precisely expressed.

Ah.  Sorry, I was confused about your sentence (I was confusing it
with {lo vofli pe makfioga}).  I was trying to express the concept,
not translate the English expression.=20

> > As for the {makf} rafsi,
> > it covers magic and the supernatural; I'd say that to the extent
> > that yoga allows them to fly, it's supernatural. =20
>=20
> I don't know much about yoga really. I would have said it's a form=20
> of meditation. Perhaps a yogi could be a menzajba.

Well, there seem to be lots for forms of yoga, ranging from worhsip
and meditation (indian yoga) through fitness regimen, exercise craze=20
(power yoga), and improbable national defense (yogic flyers and the=20
Natural Law party (of Canada)) to circus sideshow (basti is a yoga=20
technique where practicioners practice the ability to draw water up=20
into their recta).

> {makfioga} is a valid fu'ivla, but it is not formed in the normal
> way type-4 fu'ivla are formed from gismu. The standard form would
> be {makfrxioga} =20

Hmm.  I must say I'd rather pronounce my version.  Let me look at the
CLL.

It appears that in their terminology, what I am looking for is a Stage
3 fu'ivla, as it has a rafsi qualifier.  As you say, it meets the
criteria for fu'ivla, but it does not follow the algorithm.  But
following the algorithm in this case leads irreducibly to a
four-consonant cluster, which I personally find rather difficult.  In
fact, for many many gismu we will end up with such a cluster: if the
four-letter rafsi has a vowel as its second letter, which is the case
for 1104 gismu, then it must end with a pair of consonants; the
algorithm always ensures that at least two more follow.  Since this is
only one suggested algorithm, have people devised their own,
guaranteed-safe, procedures?  Or do people rely on fu'ivla having been
generated using the algorithm to recognize them?


Looking at the CLL, a step in the lujvo-making algorithm is not clear
to me:  suppose I want to make a lujvo out of {makfu nazbu}.  That
would be {makfynazbu}?  The point of confusion is this:=20

Step 4 is "Add hyphen letters where necessary. It is illegal to add a
hyphen at a place that is not required by this algorithm."=20

Steps 4 a through c describe hyphenations; but are these "always put a
hyphen" or "if you put a hyphen, this is how"? =20

Specifically, will a four-letter rafsi always be followed by a "y" in
lujvo?  (this never occurs in /usr/share/lojban/lujvo-list)


Thanks,
Andrew