RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?

["Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>]

>> Oh, and I seem to rememeber you using 'xu' and '.ui' the last time this
>> came up. Is 'xu' being in UI the only thing that bothers you about se
>> cmavo? If you want to junk something, I'd hope there is at least more
than
>> one instance of it annoying you.

I missed this comment the first time, so I will respond now. The answer is
that xu and .ui are a particularly blatant example, but far from the only
one. I also don't think that lerfu should be a seperate cmavo when the most
common use is as pro-sumti - which should put them in KOhA.

>I mostly disagree with Craig's hatred of selma'o. He's railing against
>the whole system because of, apparently, a mistaken idea of their
>purpose.

I like the idea of putting cmavo in classes by function. I dislike how it
was implemented. If two things are not identical in their function within
the sentence (the ''se cmavo'') then they should not be put in the same
selma'o, e.g. xu, the attitudinal that has nothing to do with attitudes.
Furthermore, consider the other problem with UI. Is "(some UI) le broda cu
brode" asserting that 'le broda cu brode'? You definitely can't say yes and
include .e'o, .e'u, or many people's interpretation of .a'o - but you can't
say no and include .ui, zo'o, or .iu, to name a few examples. This is a
serious grammatical difference. Maybe call one UI and one XU, or something,
because then it is possible to say, for instance, "all UI have the same
function, the expressing of emotion, while all XU have the function of
removing the assertive value of the bridi to express something about it
without having to claim it is true or nesting it inside of a ''nu'' phrase."
I would like to see the x2 of cmavo filled by the actual function of the
cmavo, rather than some arbitrary capital letters. Thus, ''zo .ui cmavo le
selcinmo'' because its grammatical function (that's right its SE CMAVO) is
one of emotions. ''zo xu na cmavo le selcinmo'', as it asks questions
instead.

>However, I believe that from usage some selma'o will eventually combine.
>What is the grammatical distinction between ZEhA, ZAhO, FAhA, and PU?

The same as the distinction between UI and XU, in my hypothetical example.

                             --la kreig.daniyl.

     'coi doi drata mibypre
     .i pu temci so'i detri
     .i mi'o na cafne ka'e tavla
     .i lenu go'i cu zekri
     .ija'e ko mi cusku le do nambi
     .i mi ba go'i do
     .i mi'o cmila joi maltavla joi mi'atavla
     joi pinxe le vanjo'
                     -la djimis.BYFet

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme:  0x5C3A1E74