[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: cmevla as a class of brivla
On Monday, May 27, 2013 7:05:16 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:coi rodo
While reading the other thread on commands, I noticed this sentence by la gleki:
"e'i si ei si xoi si sei bilga mi bazu troci lo ka stika lo tatoebas jufra"
"lo tatoebas jufra" is ungrammatical according to standard lojban, but
I have been seeing around that de facto may be different from the
standard. I now think that standard lojban naming rules are broken,
and using cmevla as brivla is the way to go, at least on the field of
naming. I found this old conversation:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/rSXFTFeMA_o
in which Robin said the rules weren't broken. I now strongly disagree.
So my question is what's de facto on this subject?
Side notes. This is an example of good ideas being favored by no one.
It's been 22 years (yes, you are not mistaken) since this was proposed.
At that time it was Loglan.
However, I'm not sure what {lo .paris.} would mean under this proposal.
If cmevla as brivla are considered as names then lo .paris. = la .paris.
If cmevla is a new class of verbs/content words/predicates (whatever you call it) that's another story.
mu'o mi'e betsemes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.