[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: stage 1 and 2 non-fu'ivla



On 1/7/06, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> In more common names, the English names "John", "Jan", "Jane", and "Jen"
> are so packed that Lojbanization loses distinctness.

I would do them as {djon}, {djan}, {djein} and {djen}, but "John" has
been traditionally lojbanized as {djan}. (There's also {djin} and {djun}
for "Gene" and "June".)

> ---------
> But in the original reasoning, my design posed the stages of borrowing
> as this: for a first nonce of a strange name or word that didn't
> Lojbanize trivially, a fluent speaker would tend to simply quote the
> non-Lojban word, using me to make it a selbri.
...
> This concept was based on a certain version of "me" which may or may not
> still work (since I don't clearly know where "me" stands these days in
> usage).

The current baseline corresponds to the CLL definition, which makes
the {me} selbri apply to the referents of the sumti, so it would not work
with a quote directly. {me zoi zoi spaghetti zoi} is "x1 is the word
'spaghetti' " and not "x1 is a quantity of spaghetti". {me la'e zoi} might
work though.

The ma'oste definition of {me} would give "x1 is specific to the word
'spaghetti' in aspect x2", which is not all that clear what it means.

mu'o mi'e xorxes