On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:46:07AM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/10/2002 9:18:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
> lojban-out@lojban.org writes:
>
> <<
> > The lujvo in the lujvo list are almost entirely literal... In fact,
> > I don't believe I've seen a single figurative one from it yet, and
> > this is the source for all my lujvo needs (I think one-off inventions
> > of lujvo are generally not worth it; or at least i'm not fast enough
> > with it for real conversations, and I don't desire the meaning of
> > my utterances to be changed after the fact when that lujvo gets a
> > real, assigned, dictionary definition).
> >
> > Culling things out for length is good; starting with metaphorical
> > crud that only works based on interpreting things in an english
> > context is not.
> >>
>
> The lujvo list I have is pretty much taken up by chicken-shit forms like
> {selbroda} from {se broda} and a few 2nd-place inclusions. It has yet to
> turn up a wors I have needed for anything and I don't do very recondite
> stuff.
Riiight; with the insanely large volume of lojban-only text you
post to this list or speak on irc, this is completely understandable.
> What is the actual source of this list? It looks like an exercise in
> creating just such lujvo, without any regard to practical needs. It is
> surely not based on actual text, since the good ones I have ssen are not
> there and the ones there turn up in text only after the fact and as used by
> newbies who haven't got the hand of making their own.
Making your own lujvo is really not a good idea since we have no
central, easily maleable lujvo dictionary in use yet (ku'i.ui ca'o
farvi gau la djeiz.)
> I am sorry to hear that Jordan has so little to say that this list is
> adequate for his purposes (or that he strains it to such an extent that he
> can make it work).
.oiru'e la'e di'u mutce bebna .i na xamgu darlu .i mi jai mulno casnu
> Of course, he may have a different list from the one I have, Nick & Nora as
> of 12/00 -- purporting to be a comilation of something or other unspecified
> (but containing no Helmsem, for example).
So essentially, your claim about "long tradition foo blah blah" is just
a matter of you ignoring the only thing that even slightly resembles the
lujvo dictionary talked about in CLL. I think I'm done reading your posts
in this thread.
P.S. mi xebni le'e cakla
--
Jordan DeLong
fracture@allusion.net
Attachment:
pgp00057.pgp
Description: PGP signature