[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] selma'o considered harmful
At 03:57 PM 8/13/01 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
>>From the Wiki: http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?cmene . Is there any
> official verdict on the usage of CMENE and selma'o, John?
It's certainly bogus to call CMENE a selma'o, though the internal
code of the parser does (as well as BRIVLA). In Lojban, a better
term such as vlalei would be preferred. Then there are 3 vlalei
and 120+ selma'o.
It is bogus from the standpoint of rigorous tanru/dikyjvo etymology, but
this is a case where a lujvo through usage does not strictly mean what its
etymology suggests. selma'o was coined as a word for "lexeme" when dikyjvo
did not exist and it is thoroughly ensconced in our literature with that
meaning. I think it is now a little too late to do to selma'o what we did
to kunbri (now selbri, and the former is long forgotten) and le'avla (now
fu'ivla, but you can still find the former sometimes).
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org