From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Nov 13 14:43:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 13 Nov 2001 22:43:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 3336 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 22:43:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Nov 2001 22:43:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 22:43:43 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A220AF6A0094; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:43:44 -0500 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:43:42 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <20011113172428.B841@twcny.rr.com> Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> Oh, and I seem to rememeber you using 'xu' and '.ui' the last time this >> came up. Is 'xu' being in UI the only thing that bothers you about se >> cmavo? If you want to junk something, I'd hope there is at least more than >> one instance of it annoying you. I missed this comment the first time, so I will respond now. The answer is that xu and .ui are a particularly blatant example, but far from the only one. I also don't think that lerfu should be a seperate cmavo when the most common use is as pro-sumti - which should put them in KOhA. >I mostly disagree with Craig's hatred of selma'o. He's railing against >the whole system because of, apparently, a mistaken idea of their >purpose. I like the idea of putting cmavo in classes by function. I dislike how it was implemented. If two things are not identical in their function within the sentence (the ''se cmavo'') then they should not be put in the same selma'o, e.g. xu, the attitudinal that has nothing to do with attitudes. Furthermore, consider the other problem with UI. Is "(some UI) le broda cu brode" asserting that 'le broda cu brode'? You definitely can't say yes and include .e'o, .e'u, or many people's interpretation of .a'o - but you can't say no and include .ui, zo'o, or .iu, to name a few examples. This is a serious grammatical difference. Maybe call one UI and one XU, or something, because then it is possible to say, for instance, "all UI have the same function, the expressing of emotion, while all XU have the function of removing the assertive value of the bridi to express something about it without having to claim it is true or nesting it inside of a ''nu'' phrase." I would like to see the x2 of cmavo filled by the actual function of the cmavo, rather than some arbitrary capital letters. Thus, ''zo .ui cmavo le selcinmo'' because its grammatical function (that's right its SE CMAVO) is one of emotions. ''zo xu na cmavo le selcinmo'', as it asks questions instead. >However, I believe that from usage some selma'o will eventually combine. >What is the grammatical distinction between ZEhA, ZAhO, FAhA, and PU? The same as the distinction between UI and XU, in my hypothetical example. --la kreig.daniyl. 'coi doi drata mibypre .i pu temci so'i detri .i mi'o na cafne ka'e tavla .i lenu go'i cu zekri .ija'e ko mi cusku le do nambi .i mi ba go'i do .i mi'o cmila joi maltavla joi mi'atavla joi pinxe le vanjo' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74