From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Oct 31 11:05:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 31 Oct 2001 19:05:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 53765 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2001 19:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Oct 2001 19:05:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Oct 2001 19:05:31 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (209-8-89-79.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.79]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9VJ5OC57762; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 14:05:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011030175438.00ad9f00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:08:51 -0500 To: And Rosta Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Cc: lojban In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 02:41 PM 10/30/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >>> John Cowan 10/29/01 07:39pm >>> >#And Rosta wrote: >#> Eh? What am I missing? -- "pa djacu cu du lo djacu" seems wholly true. ># >#Should have been "pa djacu cu du re djacu" > >Well, Jorge has shown why that's false. We need to change it in order for it >to make the point you want: > > lo djacu pa mei cu du lo djacu re mei > >and this I would say is TRUE. It is less than fully true; there are instances of djacu pamei, specifically molecules or whatever we wish to consider djacu selci, the smallest chunks of water that display the necessary properties to call it "djacu", that are pamei and not remei. But that minimum size is rather fuzzily defined whereas the minimum size of lo remna selci is fairly clear in that we don't call a single person a twosome, or an amputee a less-than-onesome, but it becomes less clear how we might count a human who has had a heart transplant from another human (as compared to if it is a chimpanzee or an artificial heart?) >#> #(Oy, I curse the day that I decided to merge selma'o DU and GOhA.) >#> >#> Why? ># >#Because tanru with du are useless, and it would have been more Zipfy >#not to have to use "cu" in sentences like that. > >Indeed. But more generally, it would be interesting to get statistics on >the frequency of cu compared to the frequency of tanru (or at least the >frequency of cu to avoid parsing as tanru). If I'd been designing the >language my gut feeling would have been to do all tanru by means of co, >or, better, by a co-analogue of be/bei/be'o. Zipf rules. JCB liked tanru. So do I. Why make them harder to say, oh ye who seeks abbreviated forms? lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org