Re: [lojban] la za'e filjvocedra (The Age of Easy Lujvo)

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   I happen to agree with xorxes (yeah, one of those rare times :-) )

Hey, it's not _that_ rare. The problem is that if you say ".i mi klama
lo zarci ba'o lo nu mi cavlu'i" I will not say:

I agree with your use of ".i".
I agree with your first use of "mi".
I agree with your use of "klama".
I agree with your first use of "lo".
I agree with your use of "zarci".
I agree with your second use of "lo".
I agree with your use of "nu".
I agree with your second use of "mi".
I agree with your use of "cavlu'i".

I will only say:

I disagree with your use of "ba'o".

So the 90% agreement goes by unnoticed, and only the 10% disagreement
receives all the attention. And that's in a sentence where there is
any disagreement at all. For most sentences there will be 100%
agreement. If I say "mi klama lo zarci ca lo nu mi ba'o cavlu'i", I'm
sure we will not have any disagreement at all. And most sentences are
like that. :)

> that
> brodytce is preferable to tcebroda and while the underlying tanru can be
> thought of as either "mutce broda" or "broda mutce"

I think this is something of a problem when thinking about lujvo.
There is no "underlying tanru" in lujvo. I know that the official
literature talks that way sometimes, but that only makes sense when
considering the meaning of the x1 of a lujvo. It doesn't help much
with the full meaning of a lujvo.

> it cannot be denied that expanded out,
>what is really being said is x1 mutce lo ka broda kei.  (So
> really, broda mutce is really more proper, but I admit as an English
> speaker, I'm more likely to invert it).

I think we should blame the French.

It's easy to explain "tsa-mau" as "strong-er" and "tsa-rai" as
"strong-est", but there's no "strong-issimo" in English to explain
"tsa-tce", so we are left with the tanruish "very strong" instead of a
proper English lujvo. If the French had kept the Latin -issimus suffix
like the other Romance languages did, then they could have passed it
on to English and we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. (I
think in Latin it was actually a superlative, but it's an augmentative
in Spanish.)

> And this is the point -- with most
> lujvo where the  x2 of the full expansion of the underlying tanru is (an
> abstraction involving) the seltau and the selbri being the tertau, we make
> the lujvo in the order of {seltau,tertau}, as well we should,
> since the lujvo is  a type of {tertau}.  Ex. mrobi'o (<- morsi binxo <-
> binxo lo morsi),  jungau (<- djuno gasnu <- gasnu lo nu x2 djuno), larfi'i
> (<- larcu finti <- finti x2 noi lo larcu), etc.  so I see no reason to break
> that pattern with mutce.

Right.

And I see no problem at all with the tanru "mutce broda". But a lujvo
does not "come from a tanru".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.