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

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

ki'e tsani

I liked the English definitions. With regards to {vlakemlerpoi}, I
just don't like much the
fact that the alphabet comes before the word itself in the place
structure, but I understand
your motivation to make it parallel to the veljvo components.

An alternative proposal would be to have for {vlakemlerpoi} just
  "x1 is a spelling of word x2."
and let the other admittedly possibly relevant place(s) be added as modals.
Or we could leave the other places at the end, preserving parallelism
as much as possible:
  "x1 is a spelling of word x2 meaning x3 in language x4, alphabet x5."

What do you people think?

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 14 July 2012 00:53, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
> {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.