[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
la .tijlan. cu cusku di'e
On 28 May 2013 13:54, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>>
wrote:
> In any case, we could manipulate such names freely. We can {.klaus.
bo .peter.} or {.peter. co .klaus.} because once split, the above
problem doesn't exist anymore (it's effectively a case of {BRIVLA bo/co
BRIVLA}), though it still makes a difference for the meaning of the
unsplit cmevla string. It becomes especially apparent once you add a
third component that is supposed to modify the entire cmevla string:
>
> lo xekri .ford.taurus.
>
> Option 1 has it that {melbi} modifies {.ford.taurus.}
> Option 2 would interpret it as {(melbi .ford.) .taurus.}
>
> It can't be both, so a decision has to be made.
From my perspective, if koha's family name is "klaus", that's a string
not specific to koha but shared by koha & certain family members. It's a
generic name, and quite compatible with the semantics of seltau.
"Klaus-Peter" is a first name, just like "Jean-Claude".
If a specific name consists of multiple strings, like "Jean-Claude", and
if we didn't want to concatenate them into one string, we could make a
tertau that's a pair of parallel selbri joined by a connective: {.jan.
JOI .klod.}.
Or maybe the hyphen should simply be ignored, and the person would be
called {.klauspeter.} or {.janklod.}.
Or, one could invoke CLL 5:15:
"The tanru may refer to things which are correctly specified by both
tanru components."
Sure, some tanru expand into a gi'e construct. IF a cmevla string falls
apart into seperate tanru-units, then it would apply to them too.
> I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of symmetry. The whole
point of The Merge is to *increase* symmetry, is it not?
Assuming you are talking about tanru: [...]
I'm talking about the symmetry between brivla and cmevla. Making them
behave in exactly the same way is what I call symmetry. Similarly, GIJA
would create symmetry among the logical and non-logical connectives.
Also:
Suppose someone is named "Panz Lanz". "Panz" is the given name, "Lanz"
the family name. If we lojbanized and treated each as symmetric parts of
the name -- i.e. both {panz} and {lanz} refer specifically to the
individual offspring --, we might still want a generic cmevla for
different members of the Lanz family. We could reasonably use {lanz} for
that. Then what reason would there be to keep {lanz} & {panz} symmetric
rather than letting {lanz} modify {panz} as per the usual handling of tanru?
This is not the symmetry I was talking about, see above. A tanru,
whether it be one made from brivla or cmevla, should always be vague
about the relationship between seltau and tertau.
Having family names as independent cmevla rather than an inalienable
part of a specific name, can be productive, as in the "Koch brothers",
{kok bruna}, "Koch-type-of brothers". "David Koch" could then be {kok
deivid}, "Koch-type-of David". I think it would make sense if {kok} in
the two tanru referred generically to the same family rather than
brothers on one hand and an individual on the other hand, at least to
the extent that it *is* a family name. In the "Mario brothers" and the
"Doobie Brothers", "Mario" and "Doobie" aren't a family name, but they
can still be translated as a seltau modifying {bruna}.
I agree. This is a strong argument for Option 2, which means that the
Ford Taurus example would have to be {lo melbi ke .ford.taurus.}.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
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.