[lojban] Re: Projects

["reverendzow" <reverendzow@yahoo.com>]

--- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton <lojban-out@l...> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:00:36 -0000, reverendzow <reverendzow@y...> 
wrote:
> > --- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton <lojban-out@l...> 
wrote:
> > > It would certainly need to allow people to differentiate
> > > between lujvo and tanru; "glibau" is not the same as
> > > "glico bangu". (It *is* the same as "gicybau" or "glicybangu",
> > > though, by definition, so one notation could conceivably
> > > represent either.)
> > 
> > So if glibau = gicybau = glicybangu, and these are the only ways 
to
> > combine glico bangu into a lujvo,
> 
> They're not the only ways (glicybau comes to mind, but that's about
> it), but there are finitely many ways to combine two gismu into a
> lujvo.

But are they all equivalent (grammatically)?

> > then I would use some sort of physical connector between the
> > two glyphs.  The corresponding tanru would merely be the glyphs
> > adjacent, sans connector or cmavo.
> 
> So you'd essentially use {zei} everywhere you'd want to make a 
lujvo.

{glicuzeibangu} is the way to do that, right?

> I had considered the problem as well, and this seemed to be the
> obvious solution to combining kanji yet allowing you to distinguish
> between tanru and lujvo. It didn't strike me as very pretty, though.
> 
> (An alternative might be to have logograms for rafsi, possibly based
> on the logograms for the selrafsi - for example, by having little
> strokes to show whether it's the CVC, CCV, or CVV rafsi of that
> gismu.)

Another possibility here is the use of radicals, esp. if CVC/CCV/CVV 
are similarly equivalent.

> > > > I have come up with ka'eserafsi, although my construction
> > > > may be flawed,
> > >
> > > That falls apart into the three words "ka'e se rafsi". "da ka'e 
se
> > > rafsi" seems to me to mean something like "X can be a word
> > > which has rafsi". But only gismu and some cmavo have rafsi;
> > > brivla in general do not. (The lujvo composed of "ka'e se rafsi"
> > > would be "ka'erselrafsi", FWIW.)
> > 
> > My intent of a literal translation was "X has the ability to be 
the
> > meaning of a rafsi".  And (I think) I would prefer lo over da in 
this
> > instance.  So "lo ka'erselrafsi", perhaps?
> 
> Comparing {lo} and {da} is comparing apples and onions. {lo
> ka'erselrafsi} is a sumti: "a word which can have rafsi"; {da
> ka'erselrafsi} is a complete bridi and means "X can have rafsi". (If
> that's what the lujvo {ka'erselrafsi} means.)

Got it.  Or, rather, I see that I really need to learn more Lojban.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/