Subject: Re: [lojban] zipf computations & experimental cmavo

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:20:33 +0100

#>>> John Cowan <[email-masked]> 09/25/01 08:18pm >>>
#Pierre Abbat wrote:
#> I agree (e.g. noltrube'a -> noltube, not that I think we should actually 
#> 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 
#> {glaukysedyterjo'e}, but if we do need to talk about them, we will use the 
#> 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 asymmetric),
the long form could be bound to any valid brivla form, which I do feel
would be satisfactory.

--And.