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

Re: [lojban] The important distinction between "cmene" and "cmevla"



On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, 'Wuzzy' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

When the CLL talks about a “cmene” is means actually a “cmevla” in most
of the cases. I think the reason why the CLL calls it “cmene” anyways
is simply that the word “cmevla” didn’t exist when the CLL was written
and the authors were not really aware of the distinction.

Not quite the reason. See for example this thread from 1993 (four years before publication of CLL).

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/lojban/cmevla/lojban/yl7n3TjSwR4/WlC2H11TcKMJ

John Cowan:
> I believe that the rest of your remarks evince a fundamental confusion,
> which is perhaps not sufficiently clarified in our materials, between
> names as an argument-class and names as a word-class.  The word-class called
> "cmene" or "names" need no identifying flag; they are self-identifying
> because they end with a consonant+pause, which is not possible for any
> other word of the language.  It would be more correct to call them
> "cmene valsi", or "name-words".  Although restricted grammatically,
> name-words can be preceded by quite a few other words besides "la".

And:
> OK, so I was talking not about cmevla as such but about cmene in general,
> including _la gismu_ & _laho la. xxxxooo la._

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.