On 17 May 2010 02:28, Lindar
<lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
I do not like this idea at all.
Leave names be names.
{la cribe} is also a name. So you are talking about cmene (words that start with gadri {la}), not cmevla (words that end with a consonant). The proposed view is more about cmevla than cmene. It would not affect the grammar of cmene whatsoever, I think.
There are obvious occasions in which we want to use a (lojbanized) foreign word as a selbri where any good gismu or lujvo alternative escapes, like {ti me la spagetis} or {ti cidjrspageti}. Unlike independent {la spagetis}, which is a name, {me la spagetis} is a non-name syntactic unit, selbri, and does not semantically differ from {spagetis} as selbri in the proposed view. That is, we could simplify the form of cmevla-based selbri without changing the grammar of cmene, names. Names would be left names.
What's wrong with {.i mi klama fu le mi karce no'u la .opel.} if you
have to be explicit about the brand name?
{le mi karce no'u la .opel.} might work if the car is *actually* named {la .opel.}. But isn't {la .opel.} the name of a company? If so, {no'u} is wrong, since it suggests "my car is a company". {pe} is better. {no'u} is for identification; {pe} is for association.
If we make cmevla usable as selbri, then there's little to no point or
motive to create or use fu'ivla, and then we might as well just say
"fuck it" and use all English words written in Lojban phonology. This
is a horrible idea.
We could make a fu'ivla like "fakiti" to mean "fuck it", but we haven't. And if someone actually said {fakiti}, it wouldn't be approved by the community at large. For the same reason, a cmevla selbri like {fakit}, possible in the proposed scheme, wouldn't take root, I think.
By your logic we may as well say {.i mi .going. .stor. .xaus.}, and
then why bother? Just speak English. >_>
The official grammar already allows {mi me la going.stor.xaus}, {mi going zei stor zei xaus}, etc.
Not all Lojbanists speak English. If I want to be understood in Lojbanistan, I should bother to speak Lojban optimally. (Nevertheless, if I was an English speaker and didn't know the valsi for "store", I don't think using "stor" as a makeshif and at the same time asking for correction would be reproachable.)
To me you're now breaking the uniqueness of Lojban by essentially
making a really stupid shortcut so nobody has to use fu'ivla or lujvo
ever again.
This proposed rule for shortcut is not in itself stupid. What is stupid is the assumption that one can be a good lojbanist without learning the proper lojban valsi (gismu, lujvo, cmavo).