[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e
At 02:41 PM 10/30/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>>> John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> 10/29/01 07:39pm >>>
#And Rosta wrote:
#> Eh? What am I missing? -- "pa djacu cu du lo djacu" seems wholly true.
#
#Should have been "pa djacu cu du re djacu"
Well, Jorge has shown why that's false. We need to change it in order for it
to make the point you want:
lo djacu pa mei cu du lo djacu re mei
and this I would say is TRUE.
It is less than fully true; there are instances of djacu pamei,
specifically molecules or whatever we wish to consider djacu selci, the
smallest chunks of water that display the necessary properties to call it
"djacu", that are pamei and not remei. But that minimum size is rather
fuzzily defined whereas the minimum size of lo remna selci is fairly clear
in that we don't call a single person a twosome, or an amputee a
less-than-onesome, but it becomes less clear how we might count a human who
has had a heart transplant from another human (as compared to if it is a
chimpanzee or an artificial heart?)
#> #(Oy, I curse the day that I decided to merge selma'o DU and GOhA.)
#>
#> Why?
#
#Because tanru with du are useless, and it would have been more Zipfy
#not to have to use "cu" in sentences like that.
Indeed. But more generally, it would be interesting to get statistics on
the frequency of cu compared to the frequency of tanru (or at least the
frequency of cu to avoid parsing as tanru). If I'd been designing the
language my gut feeling would have been to do all tanru by means of co,
or, better, by a co-analogue of be/bei/be'o.
Zipf rules. JCB liked tanru. So do I. Why make them harder to say, oh ye
who seeks abbreviated forms?
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