Re: [lojban] Named multiples

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In effect, what you're saying is that you want to completely merge
> cmevla and fu'ivla.

Merge the syntactic classes cmevla and brivla, yes. Brivla would still
be divided in four morphological classes: gismu/lujvo/fu'ivla/cmevla,
but there is no need for the last class to have its own separate
syntax.

> I don't really see what you're saying here, unless you also want to
> argue that {.xorxes.} has a "meaning".  What's the difference?

A predicate "xorxes" could mean "is named 'xorxes'", if anything at
all. In any case, in "la xorxes" the meaning of the predicate is as
irrelevant as the meaning of "donri" in "la donri". "la" in any case
removes the meaning from the word that follows.

"x1 is named '...'" would probably be the default meaning for cmevla.
But other cmevla, like "spagetis" or "opel" would carry more meaning
than just "x1 is named '...'".

(In fact "spagetis" is a bad example because "spageti" is a valid the
stage-4 fu'ivla. There is no need to go through the more distorted
".spagetis." when the original is already closer to a proper stage-4
form, but that's the example CLL uses.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.