RE: [lojban] conversion lujvo

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

steven lytle:
> why are lujvo of converted gismu preferred over the bare converted gismu?
> e.g. why is [selcasnu] used instead of [se casnu] in the nuzban headings?  it
> seems to me that [se casnu] should be used, since it's simpler and its
> component words are basic ones.

There are no really good reasons for this, and on the whole it is to be
deprecated, because {selcasnu} would usually be used to mean {se casnu},
yet since {selcasnu} needn't be truthconditionally equivalent to
{se casnu}, the use of {selcasnu} *ought to* (but in actual usage
doesn't) imply that it is not truthconditionally equivalent to
{se casnu}.

I suspect, though, that there is a half-decent semiconscious rationale
for the usage of {selcasnu} to mean {se casnu}. It is a way to try to
avoid the logically improper (i.e. unmotivated) foregrounding of the
x1 place. x1 and non-x1 places are semantically equivalent and
undifferentiated (i.e. there is no semantic import to the property
of being a non-x1 sumti) but certain constructions (e.g. sumti
tail) require extra words (i.e. SE) to be used to 'access' non-x1
places. Using {selcasnu} levels the playing field syntactically,
though not phonologically.

--And.