Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

It s probably worth noting in these otherwise dubious expansions that the assigned name is deracinated, that is, it does NOT include, even implicitly, any {zo'e}s. {la broda be zo'e} is another name altogether, and no more related to the first than {la brode} is.

There appear to be two choices. One is that {la} functions like {le} etc. making a special kind of description out of a brivla or bridi tail or what have you. In that case, cmevla are just an odd sort of brivla, requiring {la} to function as names and other wise serving as predicates meaning "x1 is named by this string": {mi pycyn} is well-formed and nothing special. On the other hand, {la} is special in that it turns a brivla into a soundstring and then uses that string as a name. In that case, cmevla are a separate category, since they name without the need for {la} (although the rules do require its use). {la}turns a brivla into a cmene. The expansions fairly clearly favor the second view, but are, of course, not strictly official.

From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

la .van. cu cusku di'e
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 02:20:21PM +0200, selpa'i wrote:
>> la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
>>> But that isn't the case for Lojban.
>>
>> You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).
>
> Hold it right there. He's definitely not. It's just that some people
> who produce most noise - not judging whether this is good or bad - on this list
> oppose it. That doesn't mean nobody else has the same opinion.

Then they should speak up and add to the discussion. If, in discussion X, something gets decided, then person Y that never cared to participate in discussion X should not complain about the outcome. In other words, if you want your opinion to be heard, then let it be heard. Otherwise it can be asumed you don't have an opinion or don't have an interest in the outcome of the discussion.

> I also assume most people don't care at all wondering why there's so much fuss
> over this.
>
>> But the accepted definition of {la} is:
>>
>> la broda == lo selcme be zo broda
>
> No, it is not. The last "accepted" "definition" of {la} is in xorlo which states
>
> la [PA] broda - zo'e noi lu [PA] broda li'u cmene ke'a mi
>
> I'm not sure that is the same thing.

That's the same definition, just expanded.

lo broda = zo'e noi broda

la broda = lo selcme be zo broda = zo'e noi ke'a selcme zo broda

> At least the full structure of the subsentence
> includes {zo'e}s, so you can't get around them at all levels.

The {lo}-version also has {zo'e}:

lo selcme = lo selcme be zo'e bei zo'e

There is no difference.

> Another rather simple observation: Whether or not {la selpa'i}
> is decided to have some semantic connection to {prami}, you're not able to make
> people ignore connotations of the word you're uttering.
> Psychological fact (if such things even exist).
> Therefore, if I read {la tsani}, I will think of the person AND I will think
> of sky. Same for {selpa'i}. So if you don't want me to think of "beloved"
> when I read about you, pick a different name.

Connotation is not outlawed, but {la} only denotes. I don't mind if you get reminded of the brivla {selpa'i} when you see {la selpa'i}, but you should mainly think of me or someone else that goes by that name. {la tsani} has nothing to do with skies, and if you cannot ignore the gismu meaning, then that's your problem of reading too much into names. I think of Jacob Errington, not of the sky, when I see {la tsani}.

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.