Re: [lojban] Digest Number 1754

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

> Message: 11
>    Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
>    From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1752
>
>
> la nitcion cusku di'e
>
> >  >It doesn't strike me as a natural class of syntactic classes, since
> >  >the only thing that those syntactic classes have in common is that
> >  >they all have the morphological property of being expressed by
> >  >cmavo.
> >
> >  ... and that they are function words and not content words.
>
> Some cmavo are content words too. The clearest case is BAIs, each
> of which has the full semantic content of a gismu.

I really should resist the temptation here, but: the point of the 
content/function distinction is the function, not the content. A word 
that adds an argument to a predicate with no other obvious syntactic 
function --- an adposition --- is pretty canonical as an instance of 
a function word. How is BAI not an adposition?

>  > >As for usability in lujvo, one that I've often missed is something
> >  >correponding to Esperanto -inda, "deserving of".
> >
> >  mapti is kind of vague, but can be pressed into service, surely.
>
> There are workarounds, yes, but it is a word I've missed in several
> occasions.

Perhaps; I have used -xamgu in ways others have objected to, probably 
in the same way (useful as plixau, which I guess is more uzinda than 
uzebla).

> [...]
> >  >I agree. Not only for gismu, but also for lujvo and fu'ivla. They should
> >  >not be added willy-nilly and without due consideration. Especially so in
> >  >the case of gismu forms.
> >
> >  So, we're in agreement. Which I should have realised. :-)
>
> Yes, I only disagree with the absolute proscription position.

Well, you know, I could fulminate "this shall never be discussed", 
but it seems to me far more constructive to have these proposals 
raised "once and for all" before the bpfk. If we dismiss them, it 
would be nice to provide explicit rationales, and get the imprimatur 
of the community; if there are true gaps, it's our job to consider 
them, however conservative the institutional bias might be.

I won't rule out additions to the gismu set. But like I say, they 
have to be well justified. In fact (to anticipate a response to And 
I'll need to make later), it looks like the exptal gismu have been 
semantically trivial (mangos and taxis) precisely because people have 
been fearful of the consequences of proposing major additions like 
"deserving". So in fact the revisionists have been avoiding truly 
attacking the foundation of the language, the way a proposal of 
"deserving" might (or might not). Interesting insight, And.

> Message: 15
>    Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:19:48 -0700
>    From: Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>
> Subject: Re: bpfk vs jbovlaste
>
> Repeating what I said in the other thread: jbovlaste will be revised
> to disallow experimental words in the dictionary output.

I think it would be perfectly adequate to have a big flaming star or 
other disclaimer (or as a retrieval preference specified globally), 
but I leave that decision to Jay and you (since you've already taken 
it anyway :-)

> Message: 20
>    Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:41:40 -0700
>    From: Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1752
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:09:09AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> >  Nick Nicholas scripsit:
> >
> >  > Moreover, any objections (and there have been many) lambast the
> >  > whole of MEX, and MEX cmavo have few defenders. Most prominently
> >  > you, in fact; the only other I can think of who is on record as
> >  > not minding them is Robin.CA.
> >
> >  I'll go on record as favoring MEX cmavo too.
>
> I rather like them, as does Martin Bays.

OK, guys, OK. The point was really that noone's going to attack re'a 
individually from other MEX, and MEX as a whole have been attacked. 
If any MEX were monosyllabic, you would see particular ones being 
singled out.

I just hope we're not planning to add any... :-)


--
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas,  French & Italian Studies       nickn@unimelb.edu.au *
  Rm 637 Arts Centre, Melbourne University, Australia    www.opoudjis.net
*    "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the       *
  circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.    *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****