On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:20 AM, selpa'i
<seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
la .lojbab. cu cusku di'e
Those exceptions are in fact significant - they are examples of the
brivla (or whatever word) being taken as a string of symbols/sounds that
exists on it own regardless of which word or kind of word that it is. It
would seem that you want names to be another example of a string of
symbols taken as such a standalone language unit.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying they are. I thought I had made that clear. A name is a word (or multiple words) used to refer to some entity, irrespective of what that word might mean.
But that isn't the case for Lojban.
You seem to be alone in thinking that (see other people's responses).
He's not.
As you say, {zo tsani} is just the "standalone language unit" "tsani", the word itself, without any hidden places. But the accepted definition of {la} is:
la broda == lo selcme be zo broda
So you must have a different definition of {la} than everyone else.
I am saying that as far as Lojban is concerned "{la tsani} and {la tsani
be zo'e}" are linguistically equivalent, and there is no way to say "la
tsani" such that it DOESN'T include a possible value in the unspecified
places; they are there and they are "zo'e", if nothing else.
I understand your position. However, I doubt la tsani would agree that his name is "tsani be zo'e". It's not the same name as it is a different string of sounds.
And dotside or no dotside, I will never accept someone's choice of name
to be "la" %^)
That's your private business, but don't expect everyone else to follow your personal preference here. I also don't see how dotside is relevant to this.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i