On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 03:40:23PM -0700, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Morphologically, the classes are gismu, cmavo, lujvo, fu'ivla and cmene.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > Syntactically, the classes are BRIVLA, CMENE, KOhA, A, BAI, TAhE, VAU,
> > etc...
> >
> > I.e. brivla, cmavo and cmene, as I mentioned.
>
> cmavo is not a syntactic class, it is a morphological class.
It is also a class of syntactic classes. (And as you hopefully can
tell, that is to what I was refering).
> GOhA for example is syntactically much closer to BRIVLA than
> to any other selma'o. gismu are priviledged morphologically,
> not syntactically, over other brivla. In a similar way CV cmavo
> are morphologically priviledged over CVV, and CV'V cmavo.
Sure, but that's not relevant to the issue of this brivla privledge
concept.
> > > > Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla
> > > > are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than
> > > > the others.
> > >
> > > If that were so, then why all the fuss when a new gismu is proposed,
> > > but no fuss when a new lujvo or fu'ivla is proposed?
> >
> > Because the gismu list is frozen, and there's no reason to prefer
> > a gismu rather than another brivla.
>
> And yet people do seem to prefer gismu. They are used much more frequently
> than other brivla.
Frequency of use is only because they are the only words with set
standards about use.
Furthremore, whether people prefer gismu does not prove anything
about whether they are privledged. People unknowingly (and in your
case sometimes knowingly) misuse lojban features all the time
(especially gadri (in all cases; but of course this is mostly the
fault of the lack of clarity in the language prescription on the
subject)).
[...]
> > If you ask why it is frozen (as you no doubt will do); it would not
> > be smart to allow open season on gismu: the knee-jerk creation of
> > gismu for things which can be other brivla damage our ability to
> > increase rafsi for lujvo in the future (and in the process betrays
> > a lack of understanding about the purpose of the different types
> > of brivla).
>
> Hmm... {parji} doesn't seem to limit any increase in future rafsi
> availability, because par, paj, pai, pa'i are all already taken.
[...]
It takes the "parj" rafsi.
--
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:
pgp00489.pgp
Description: PGP signature