[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Regularization



Pretty sure BAI == fi'o BAPLI. Loosening this rule was one of our ideas, though.

mu'o mi'e .latros.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe I'm thinking of lujvo creation but I thought that the BAI were not strictly defined based on their source gismu (i.e. {broda bau lo jbobau} is not necessarily identical to {broda fi'o bangu lo jbobau}).

I see the definition of {va'o} and it does seem to have some kind of causality.  How do you interpret "under condition" without implying that {brode} is conditional on {broda}?  

Normally I would use va'o in something like {mi citka va'o da'i lo nu mi xagji}.  Is this not a fair translation of "If I am hungry, I eat"?  If not, how would you translate the english?  {ri'a} feels like it's too causal as if my being hungry forces me to eat (and there is no stopping that from happening).  

Am I just wanting too much from a logical language where natural languages have built in nuances like {da'i ca lo nu mi xagji kei mi so'iroi citka}?


On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
On IRC we were observing that common usage of {va'o} is not really consistent with its definition as a BAI associated with {vanbi}. Instead, it winds up being used like a nonlogical "if", that is one with causation implied in some way. We then went into some ideas about how one might correct this to make things regular again--redefine va'o, use another gismu to tie to va'o, bring in a new cmavo to mean what va'o is supposed to mean, etc.

And then I realized that this is "regularization"--taking a regular language that has evolved with usage slightly, but not a whole lot, and attempting to take the new, evolved language and make it regular again. Is there a policy or something on this subject? That is, is it official that Lojban is free to go as it pleases?

mu'o mi'e .latros.

Not at this point, no. Lojban is now, and will likely remain for a long time, a proscribed language.Any proposed modification of the language must be approved by the BPFK in order to be part of the language. The xorlo proposal is an excellent example of this.


--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )


--
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.

--
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.

--
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.