Re: [lojban] lujvo for "spelling"? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] How do you write "Eyjafjallajökull"? (a sentence from tatoeba))

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

{vlale'u} doesn't seem useful, but both {vlakemlerpoi} and {lerpoi} do.
My proposed definitions of lerpoi and vlakemlerpoi:

#1a .i lo ka lerpoi cu ka ce'u noi fa'ugi lu'a ke'a gi lu'o ke'a lerfu
ce'u fa'u zi'o zi'o fa'u ce'u cu porsi zi'o zi'o
"x1 is a character string (sequence of letters) in character set x2
representing x3."
porsi2 and porsi3 seem irrelevant. The fa'u-hackage is required,
because individually the letters-digits-symbols are a part of the
character set, but as a sequence or mass, aren't. However,
individually, they don't represent anything, but as a mass, they do.
The definition can be given with a termset rather than the non-logical
connective {fa'u}:
#1b .i lo ka lerpoi cu ka ce'u noi nu'i ge lu'a ke'a ce'u zi'o nu'u gi
lu'o ke'a zi'o ce'u lerfu cu porsi zi'o zi'o

(for simplicity's sake, I'm not going to give the full gismu-deep
structure of vlakemlerpoi)
#2 .i lo ka vlakemlerpoi cu ka ce'u lerpoi ce'u ce'u noi ke'a valsi ce'u ce'u
"x1 is a string in character set x3 representing word x3 meaning x4 in
language x5."
or "x1 is the spelling of x3."

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On 13 July 2012 14:31, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see the discussion drifted too much towards the nature of a spelling.
> As long as the formal character of a spelling makes it practical when
> spoken, I am satisfied. In that way, lu / lo'u / me'o quotes look equally
> fine so far. Furthermore, if different people use different styles, there
> will be no comprehension difficulty.
>
> With regards to the lujvo itself, I don't remember any suggestions or
> opinions. Are you fine with {vlakemlerpoi}? What would you define as
> {lerpoi} and {vlalerpoi}?
>
> My current opinion is that {lerpoi} is a good candidate for the relevant
> grammatical concept of lerfu string, {vlale'u} could be a letteral of the
> kind that appears in words, i.e., a regular letter, and then {vlalerpoi}
> would be a vlale'u string. Leaving {vlakemlerpoi} as a lerfu string that
> is associated with an actual word.
>
> Do you agree with this? In that case, the decision of how to refer to a
> spelling could be based on how we want to refer to a lerfu string.
>
> mu'o
> mi'e .asiz.
>
> --
> 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.