[lojban] Re: Projects

[Philip Newton <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 07:52:33 -0000, reverendzow <reverendzow@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton <lojban-out@l...> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:00:36 -0000, reverendzow <reverendzow@y...>
> wrote:
> > > 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)?

To my understanding, yes, all possible ways to compose a lujvo
(including with {zei}) produce words that are identical in meaning and
use.

> > > 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?

No, {glico zei bangu}. {zei} is a cmavo, a separate word, not a kind
of rafsi (despite its nickname of "lujvo glue"). {glicozeibangu} would
be a type-IV fu'ivla according to the tool vlatai.

> > (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.

Yes, I suppose - it would, in theory, be sufficient in writing to
indicate "this is not the gismu {broda} but its rafsi"; the actual
pronunciation could then be chosen at will. For example, the compound
"rafsi-of-condi + rafsi-of-bloti" could be pronounced as any of coiblo
(the "canonical" or default form due to the scoring rules), cnoblo,
conblo, cnolo'i, conlo'i, coirlo'i, cnobloti, conbloti, condybloti,
condylo'i, coirbloti, or condybloti (in ascending order of score).

On the other hand, any two adjacent gismu with the rafsi radical would
combine to a lujvo, so you'd still have to mark which ones go together
- since the five rafsi A B C D E could combine as the lujvo "ABCDE",
or the tanru "ABC DE" or "AB CDE", each composed of two lujvo, and the
notation I'm talking about can't distinguish between the two. (All
three forms would be difference, since the tanru "A B" does not mean
exactly the same thing as the lujvo "AB", though it'll often have that
meaning as one of its possibilities.)

So just using a generic rafsi radical wouldn't be enough; you'd either
have to have a glue marker or an unglue marker as well.

Cheers,
-- 
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>