[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

Jorge Llambías wrote:

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder -
LLG <lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>> wrote:

    Jorge Llambías wrote:

        On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and
        Founder -
        LLG <lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>
        <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>>> wrote:


    But the argument that I was responding to seems to indicate that
    anything marked with "la" is just a string being treated as a name
    with no semantic content in the same way that "zo" turns a string
    into a sumti with no semantic content.


That's basically what CLL says in Chapter 6 Section 2:

"The last descriptor of this section is “la”, which indicates that the
selbri which follows it has been dissociated from its normal meaning and
is being used as a name."
I'll have to read the context, but I think that doesn't say the same thing; it is a statement about semantics, whereas it is the grammar that has been baselined, not any semantic theory.
Below I refer to "the so-called merge proposal", which is a phrase I would express with "la". Whatever choice of sumti-tail I would choose to describe the proposal would be being "used as a name", but I'm not sure that "dissociated from its normal meaning" means that the normal meaning is irrelevant". And in any event, the grammar of the words is quite relevant. 


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. 


It
would be better if you just said that instead of trying to come up with
arguments involving nicknmes or places of selbri, which are really not
all that relevant to the proposed merge.
I was describing the intent of the designer (me) for the original design, for which those arguments were in fact the sorts of things that I had in mind in adding the current flexibility of constructs for use in descriptions and vocatives. (I still don't know what a "cmevla" is. I know what a "cmene" is) 


    I know what dotside does, and was just making a joke about one
    extreme possibility of treating any old word-string as a name.


As you point out somewhere else, it is already possible: "la'o cmene la
cmene" is correct Lojban.
It is a correct type 1 fu'ivla, just as cmene are type 2 fu'ivla. One uses the appropriate conversion cmavo to make it into the appropriate grammatical chunk (selbri or sumti) 

lojbab



--
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.