[lojban] Re: Digest Number 1752

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

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.

> Whose 
> syntax may  be disparate, sure, but has in common that it is not the 
> syntax of predicates.

Some cmavo (selma'o GOhA) do almost have the syntax of predicates,
the only difference being that GOhAs can take the modifier {ra'o}.
 
[...]
> >Even so, there were some gaps left. For example, one that came up
> >recently on the list:
> >
> >tirna sance
> >viska jvinu
> >sumne panci
> >pencu tengu
> >????? vrusi
> 
> BPFK mantra: we are not here to optimise Lojban :-) . vrusyzga it remains...

{vrusyga'e}, actually, for that series. I think only viska has a zgana 
version (i.e. catlu).

> >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.

[...]
> >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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com