2010/5/7 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.
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.
I guess the merging would involve changing the stress rules for cmevla a little bit. Firstly, no stress for monosyllabic cmevla, especially when used as a selbri. Otherwise the likes of {ko'a JAN je prenu} would be a problem. Secondly, the stress position would have to be fixed in some way. Imagine a nation whose name could be lojbanized as {nantanmin} with the original stress on the first {nan}. {ti NANtanmin cidja}, intended to mean "this is Nantanmin-type-of food", could possibly be mistaken for {ti NANtan mincidja} or even {tiNAN tanmincidja}. Doing away with the stress wouldn't solve this. But would {nantanMIN} or {nanTANmin}?
mu'o mi'e tijlan