[lojban] Re: Help in examples ...

[jordi mas <jordimastrullenque@yahoo.com>]

> > "my father" is not a noun but 
> > works like a noun. 
>  
> Er, I would suggest that "my father" is, in fact,
> exactly a complex 
> noun. 

Depends on who wrote your grammar book. In mine, 
words were classified in classes, like pronouns,
verbs, nouns, and joining words you got
noun phrases, sentences... The expression "complex
noun" was unheard of.
  
> > All this is not precise, is methaphor. 
>  
> And I disagree with you. This is not metaphor, these
> are grammatical 
> terms, and they are precise. 

Not at all. They are only precise when you and me
agree on their exact definition.

> One of us is confused.
> Naturally, I 
> think it's you. Perhaps someone else can find agreed
> common ground. 

We are not confused. We are speaking of
different things.

> > What I'm saying is that we may label things
> however we 
> > want as long as we get the meaning across. 
>  
> This is in part exactly my point - you *cannot*
> label things however 
> you choose because then they do *not* get the point
> across. 
> Labelling {sumti} as "nouns" is grossly misleading.
> It denies the 
> unification and consistency offered by the lojban
> grammar, one of 
> its strongest points. 

Sorry, I'm lost.

Suppose I write a lojban grammar and in it I call
{bridi} "prefabricated sentences with holes in them",
and I call {sumti} "hole fillers".

If I were to do that, do you think I would be denying
the unification and consistency offered by the lojban
grammar, one of its strongest points? 

> > No particular way of labelling has magical
> effects. 
>  
> Some ways of labelling have deeply detrimental
> effects.  

That's true.

> This is so 
> obvious, especially if you believe the SWH, that I'm
> sure you can't 
> believe otherwise, 

I'm sure too.

> but you seem to be claiming so.

Well, I don't know what I seem to be claiming,
so I can't deny that I seem to be claiming so.
 
> Please tell me 
> I'm misunderstanding you and clarify your position. 

You're misunderstanding me and I don't claim that
no way of labelling has deeply detrimental effects.

> > If someone wants to know how lojban works (I'm 
> > not saying to learn it), you must explain that 
> > {le karce cu blanu} means  
> > "car is blue", regardless of whether you say that 
> 
> > {blanu} is a "gismu", a "verb" or a "pigeon".  
>  
> Actually it's closer to meaning something like "Some
> thing or things 
> that I choose to refer to as a car or cars,
> is/are/were/will be 
> blue." 

Correction, I should have said lu
something like lu car is blue li'u li'u
  
> > Using nouns that a lojbanist would approve off  
> > doesn't make things easier to understand at all.  
>  
> I didn't say she wants to know how it works, I said
> I'm trying to 
> explain why the English grammatical terms are less
> accurate and 
> often inappropriate.  

That's pointless, if she doesn't know something
of how it works. If she doesn't know, she assumes that
it works just like English.

> Yes, one can say that
> generally {sumti} play 
> the role of nouns, and {selbri} play the role of
> verbs, and that 
> this is not always accurate, but without specific
> examples it's hard 
> to make that stick. 

Precisely my point.

> Are you really suggesting that {sumti} are always
> complex nouns? 

Not so. Complex nouns are a set of English
word-sequences. {sumti} are a class of lojban word
sequences. I claim that most if not all 
lojban {sumti} can be translated 
or at least paraphrased with English complex nouns
or non-complex nouns.

> If not, can you give me an example?  Just one will
do. 

Of course.

{le mi patfu}, which is a {sumti}, means something
similar to "my father", which is a complex noun,
or to "Some person or persons 
that I choose to refer to as my father or fathers"
which is a complex noun too.

--jordi



=====



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com