[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: la'e di'u (was: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.)
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban] Re: la'e di'u (was: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.)
- From: "Daniel Brockman" <daniel@brockman.se>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:59:59 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=YK4tyw+s4NY8+adlGmb5mPJ9qZokvfvxFaNKFLs6L7E=; b=AyW7pH188JDcpGIFhyje92XFMgpbI11DS4/WciJcLkmqwDlILghUabZMUUbB+yshjP ow+rUWHp1cdhWZWItwXoooghYAYS09eW6olwtM+CZh/GGQ7mPnM25kCdq/DUwRdUgD+r vLN6IcowofD8epSJJdLTkxOhqu8EbxyYaSVNs=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=AjfopXI7sbmcDV5lxheOhGYEhpfgvGuum676VF3WNYRElh99LKB5uSTM7dLbDfUZfU X43Z6RBYJ1qEmGeufDg2DXJCPwO2rfVxfM7yMW6LI03bU28hVxE3Mu41NoqszENaQu9w 3IN20vJJgl3ObdLbwkjm3o+UZJiGt8ipBk2xI=
- In-reply-to: <737b61f30811070541l45110d3dsc5144714e926e32d@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <737b61f30811070541l45110d3dsc5144714e926e32d@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 06:11, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a similar gripe about "di'u" and "la'e di'u". Why is the most
>> common and useful "la'e di'u" a compound, and the less useful "di'u" a
>> single word? Normally we are much more likely to want to talk about
>> la'e di'u than about di'u.
>
> You have to admit, it's a lot cleaner conceptually. What would be the
> alternative? Keep di'u, and la'e, and add another cmavo (or several)
> for la'e di'u simply because of the frequency of usage? Given that the
> ambiguity of la'e could stand to be fixed, would we rather add
> variations on la'e, or single-cmavo variations on la'e di'u?
We could simply have {di'u} mean what {la'e di'u} means now and
use {lu'e di'u} to mean what {di'u} means now.
--
Daniel Brockman
daniel@brockman.se