Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

Clarify? Probably not. But there are three factors involved here (at least): the official language as codified in CLL, the "current state of the language" which a group is supposed to be determining but hasn't worked on for years, and the various versions of the language which people are actually using (but people occasionally comment unfavorably on). CLL is incomplete, vague and contradictory; BPFK is silent, usage proceeds, often with incomplete or otherwise bad information. In the present case, xorxes, while moving toward including cmevla among brivla, takes the fact that LA and LE take the identically specified sumti-tails to infer that they treat them the same way, so the name applies to the first argument just as the description does (though he admits that the application may not be as direct in the LA as in the case of LE -- except, of course, when the sumti-tail is a cmevla, when it is direct and veridical and all those good things. Lojbab, keeping the two separate, still thinks that LA treats sumti-tails just like LE does; in this case, by including all the implicit {zo'e} (though he admits tsani might not want to recognize that as his name nor anyone use it of him). Finally, selpa'i (having been told collectively by xorxes and Lojbab that he is someone's beloved, like it or not) maintains that LA in fact treats sumti-tails differently from the way LE does, name taking them as mere words without any necessary connection to their normal meaning or grammar. The point is, all of these positions are firmly (well, ....) based on CLL and reflect actual usage as of now. They do not, so far as I can tell, make any difference at all (is that the "philosophical" sense of the connection between name and sumti-tail?). Taking, cmevla as a part of brivla would make a difference, allowing simple predicates, for example. And it would reinforce the first-term reading of {la} expressions (though not require it and certainly not make it more plausible).

From: Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

I see something strange here that I hope everyone help me to sort out.
Within this thread I have read the following:

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> The name is the selbri, but there is a sense in which the first argument is
> selected, as with other gadri. In Spanish we have the names "Amado" and
> "Amador". We could "translate" these as "la selpa'i" and "la prami".

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG
> I wasn't talking about meaning, actually. I was talking about grammar. A
> brivla automatically invokes grammatically the attachment of places (except
> when quoted with zo, or used as a delimiter in a zoi quote).

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:20 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

xorxes explanation on "a sense" in which {la} selects the first
argument of the selbri being used as a name, is in conflict with
Selpa'i's stated definition of "la broda". In order for a {la} to be
able to select the x1 of a selbri, it must be a selbri, but if it's a
quoted word as Selpa'i's definition seems to tell, then it's just a
string of words devoided of meaning. Could someone clarify?

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.