Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

I suppose it means something like "me la sapir joi la worf", but that is because I can immediately thing of a use for it. What I have more trouble doing is seeing it as a selbri, standing alone, rather than as a part of a tanru.

I do think this talk about a documented baseline has about worn out its usefulness. It started when it became clear that the grammar in CLL did not correspond to what anybody was doing in Lojban. But it was predicated on somebody actually doing the documentation and in the intervening two decades, no one has even made a pass at that. So, why not go back to CLL. Say that *is* the baseline and largely wrong and then start to build the new normal, incorporating suggestions as they come along and get accepted, rather than waiting for the Baseline (who is do a week after the Messiah and two after Elijah). That ids, in fact, the way people have been behaving for most of Lojban's history but there have been no controls on them because "it is not yet the time to make changes". Too bad, the changes just get made, even if they are dumb. Better to hash them out and issue decrees now then try to patch things up later (much later, since after the baseline).

So, for example, I use dotside prime. (and am thinking about dropping {la} with cmevla).

From: Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

On Sunday, June 09, 2013 13:20:00 John E Clifford wrote:
> The name-others distinction in logic is not about function (although that,
> too) but about form. Could Lojban names look just like other expressions?
> They don't, but that is not the issue.
>
> What kind of a predicate is {djan zei pol}?

A predicate with completely unclear place structure. How about
"sapir.zei.uorf"?

On Sunday, June 09, 2013 17:09:14 Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > I'm also pretty sure your problem is not with that. You oppose the merge
> > of CMEVLA with BRIVLA because you oppose any changes to the language.
>
> I do so oppose - prior to the documentation baseline. I've actually
> not taken a position on the so-called "merge" proposal, as I think has
> been described in the thread.

I oppose this merge both before and after the baseline.

On Sunday, June 09, 2013 14:16:24 John E Clifford wrote:
> My understanding of the cumulative effect of dotside is that every *name*
> must be surrounded by glottal stops (which otherwise do not except between
> final and initial vowels, i.e., phonemically conditioned). Thus,
> {.paris.rom.} is distinct from {. paris rom.}

".paris.rom." is identical to ".paris rom.". Both are one cmene composed of
two cmevla. ".paris,rom." is identical to ".parisrom.". Both are one single
cmevla.

Taking Côte d'Ivoire as an example, ".kot.divuar." and ".kot divuar." are the
same, whereas ".kot,divuar." and ".kotdivuar." are both invalid because a
voiced stop cannot be next to a voiceless stop.

Pierre
--
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

--
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.