On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Saturday 24 May 2003 11:22, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > 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 repeat, I did not invent {parji}. Go ask whoever did. I did invent {zmase},
> because "-ase" is a common suffix.
But you endorsed the concept that some ideas are "common enough"
that there "ought to be gismu for them".
> > 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.
>
> Not true. Some fu'ivla have rafsi (proposed); all gismu except {brod(i,o,u)}
> have rafsi; some gismu have short rafsi. So {malgaci zei smani} cannot be
> shortened, but {glauka zei cnebo} can be shortened to {glaukyne'o}, and
> {xamgu zei zmadu} can be shortened to {xagmau}.
What's not true? I agree with everything you just said regarding
rafsi.
I already (preemptively) addressed the rafsi = privledge argument;
the existence of zei destroys it.
--
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:
pgp00487.pgp
Description: PGP signature