From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Sep 26 10:12:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 26 Sep 2001 17:12:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 4300 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2001 17:12:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Sep 2001 17:12:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 17:12:26 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 26 Sep 2001 17:49:53 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:20:55 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:20:33 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] zipf computations & experimental cmavo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta #>>> John Cowan 09/25/01 08:18pm >>> #Pierre Abbat wrote: #> I agree (e.g. noltrube'a -> noltube, not that I think we should actually= =20 #> shorten noltrube'a). #It is already perfectly legitimate to omit rafsi from long lujvo; #The Book already talks about omitting SE from the seltau, and #there is also leaving out -kem- and -kez- and other machinery. This presupposes that the shorter version is not already an established lujvo with some other meaning. #> [N]ot many of us will need=20 #> {glaukysedyterjo'e}, but if we do need to talk about them, we will use t= he=20 #> word a lot in one article. # #Then bind it to broda. Introspecting about what happens with long technical jargon in Linguistics, I observe that there are register-specific constraints and conventions. In formal published writing, the main method of abbreviation is to use initialisms for all or part of a phrase, e.g. "NRRC" or "a-marking". In email, this method would be augmented by truncation/clipping (e.g. "subordinate > subord, argument > arg). My sense is that binding-to-broda would not be an adequate substitute for these abbreviatory methods, but as long as the binder is asymmetric (what is the binder? goi? -- I certainly insist that goi should be asymmetr= ic), the long form could be bound to any valid brivla form, which I do feel would be satisfactory. --And.