On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:51:29AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Saturday 24 May 2003 06:50, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> > Your issue (on those particular words) is with Abbat, not with Kominek
> > or Powell. Your solution is to propose a canonical word for parasite,
> > not to vent revulsion. (And I remind you of our recent discussion on
> > big and small tents.)
>
> And that word I did not invent, I only entered into the dictionary. It was
> already on the Lojban wiki, along with {didni}, {nusna}, {sicpi}, {gumri},
> and several others. The ones I invented are mostly chemical terms, such as
> {benzo} and {zmase}, which are either common enough concepts or used in
> enough compounds that I think there ought to be gismu for them.
[...]
Why?
What is with this thought that gismu are somehow privledged brivla?
This is the same thing that makes people assert that all cultures
should have gismu, instead of some with gismu and some with lujvo.
If you're talking about rafsi, go use zei. If you're talking about
word length, many lujvo have only 2 syllables, and 3 is totally
fine (hell "parasite" is 3 in english). What advantage could you
possibly see for it being a gismu?
I think this all rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of lojban
word classes. People like to think about gismu, cmavo and lujvo.
But it's actually brivla, cmavo and cmene. Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla
are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than
the others.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00486.pgp
Description: PGP signature