[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [jboske] unresolved debates
At 02:13 PM 11/22/02 +0000, And wrote:
In favour of the Woldyan position:
* Thus is it Written.
Seconded by lojbab (for what that is worth)
* It is sort-of consistent with the phonological patterning: they
all form a so'V series, whose ordering makes sense if you take
it to be alphabetical so'a>so'e>so'i>so'o>so'u counting in
the opposition direction (big to small) from normal (small to big).
This has the virtue of accounting for the apparent antiiconicity of so'i/so'u.
(I'd have expected so'u>so'o>so'a>so'e>so'i, myself,
though; much less arbitrary than alphabetical ordering.)
To which I plead "JCB". Whenever possible, I matched patterns with
whatever JCB had done, considering that consistency with old Loglan was a
highest of virtues. In this case so'a>so'e>so'i>so'o>so'u correspond to TLI
ra
all/each/every
re
most/most of
ri
several/a few of
ro
many/much of
and
sa
almost all/about..
si
at most/at most one of..
su
some/some of/at least/at least one of..
which I combined into a single sequence.
And+Cowan wrote:
> chosen. Why wasn't {so'u} "almost none", and {so'i} "a middling
> number" or "about half", or suchlike?
*shrug*
I wrote it up the way the Bobster told me to. I am not responsible for his
choice of Logflash keywords.
See the above JCBisms. LogFlash keywords were chosen for brevity/ease of
typing, at least as much as for accuracy of meaning. At the time, no one
thought that the keywords would serve as the basis for a dictionary.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org