Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 20 May 2007 15:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HpuLm-0000yJ-6m for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:58:06 -0700 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.232]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HpuLh-0000yA-5C for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:58:05 -0700 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so2489415wxd for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:57:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=afU5rvLPtGeL9c3ewnlkT25otauIm0Zrh+36w/Au2Sdlg2C6YJVvTI9K9/ah7CYWA6752r7cMcQyVRv1Xs34BYRk5/w9kBbCzoSHNjhypFQc40I1ojv3UdbbYwJdqZVk+2lanqZLqL+3c1SbPL1i3XedNUmKVX+F0uHZh/Mk+aI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=gwaSvqQmZv24J765hb8DJwGnI+BKeR9KsVTV+1IjKyhHYm4XJvA22xQFZQFS3z0eN865kuI5wysbpi2bVs4J1U38+f90JPXHQm2cDxdET2boXMj6SipAsS04YC8ySfes45w7p/6tqDizYpIBC0gcHW/ku54d0zjDLQ+jTQUek7U= Received: by 10.70.39.5 with SMTP id m5mr6103039wxm.1179701879608; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.9.19 with HTTP; Sun, 20 May 2007 15:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f91285f0705201557o75faa50avf0eaedd5f309881@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:57:55 +0100 From: "Vid Sintef" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: distinction between gismu & cmavo In-Reply-To: <20070520205750.GM7871@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_44352_25213761.1179701875811" References: <2f91285f0705201027w32358e69v3e6093496d67cc5d@mail.gmail.com> <20070520174103.GK7871@digitalkingdom.org> <2f91285f0705201200m2d51977av421055dead3bffbb@mail.gmail.com> <20070520205750.GM7871@digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4551 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: picos.picos@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 5633 ------=_Part_44352_25213761.1179701875811 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline > rafsi are affixes because you join them together to make > longerwords. They are not words in themselves; they cannot be spoken > assingle words. I don't get how you see rafsi as root words, as theyare = not > words at all. gismu are called root words because they are the roots of meaning inthe > language (discounting fu'ivla). > Isn't an affix something to be "added" to a base word and alter its origina= l grammatical nature (like the English "-er" in "longer" or the Czech "nej-" in "nejhor=9A=ED" or the Japanese "sa-" in "samayou")? If it is that rafsi = are to be "joined" together to make longer words, mustn't they be certain "root= " words themselves from which that resulting longer words' meanings would derive, possessing proper semantic essences even though they are not to be spoken as single words. If it is a convention to not use rafsi individually= , still that doesn't stop them from possessing the nature of base words. You said gismu are "root words" because they are the roots of meaning; rafsi tooare the roots of meaning, aren't they? If not, how could we possibly read the meaning of a lujvo which are made from rafsi? rafsi have meanings by themselves, and therefore they are words. Or, rather, root words, since their forms are the most basic and simplest of the lojban words which have "real contents". rafsi may have been invented after gismu, but phonemecally it's rafsi which are fundamental and carry the semantic basis of every possible meanings in Lojban, isn't it? That's why I've had the impression o= f rafsi to be more like "root words" than gismu are generally assumed to. brivla (of which gismu are a type) are > like English nounds, adjectives and adverbs. cmevla (name words) > are proper names. cmavo are everything else; articles, > conjunctions, and so on. That "cmavo are everything else" makes sense to me. But verbs? Can't verbs too be likened to brivla (predicate word), since they're used to produce predicates? I understand that we should avoid describing Lojban words in English terms; I'm just being curious where have verbs fallen on in this occasion of your comparison. ------=_Part_44352_25213761.1179701875811 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
rafsi are affixes because you join them together= to make longerwords.  They are not words in themselves; they can= not be spoken assingle words.  I don't get how you see rafsi = as root words, as theyare not words at all.
gism= u are called root words because they are the roots of meaning inthe languag= e (discounting fu'ivla).

Isn't an affix something to be "added&qu= ot; to a base word and alter its original grammatical nature (like the Engl= ish "-er" in "longer" or the Czech "nej-" in = " nejhor=9A=ED" or the Japanese "sa-" in &qu= ot;samayou")? If it is that rafsi are to be "joined" = together to make longer words, mustn't they be certain "root"= words themselves from which that resulting longer words' meanings woul= d derive, possessing proper semantic essences even though they are not to b= e spoken as single words. If it is a convention to not use rafsi individual= ly, still that doesn't stop them from possessing the nature of base wor= ds. You said gismu are "root words" because they are the roots of= meaning; rafsi=20 too are the roots of meaning, ar= en't they? If not, how could we possibly read the meaning of a lujvo wh= ich are made from rafsi? rafsi have meanings by themselves, and therefore they are words. Or, rather, root words, since their forms are the mo= st basic and simplest of the lojban words which have "real contents&qu= ot;. rafsi may have been invented after gismu, but phonemecally it's ra= fsi which are fundamental and carry the semantic basis of every possible me= anings in Lojban, isn't it? That's why I've had the impression = of rafsi to be more like "root words" than gismu are generally as= sumed to.

brivla (of which gismu are a type) are
like English nounds, adjective= s and adverbs.  cmevla (name words)
are proper names.  cmavo are everything else; articles,
conjunc= tions, and so on.

That "cmavo are everything else= " makes sense to me.
But verbs? Can't verbs too be likened to b= rivla (predicate word), since they're used to produce predicates?
I understand that we should avoid describing Lojban words in English te= rms; I'm just being curious where have verbs fallen on in this occasion= of your comparison.

------=_Part_44352_25213761.1179701875811--