From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 29 06:56:32 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Nov 2001 14:56:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 41340 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 14:56:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2001 14:56:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 14:56:32 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.a6.1d88f4b9 (4532)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:22 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] To clarify...
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 11/29/2001 6:09:42 AM Central Standard Time, 
thinkit8@lycos.com writes:


> the words themselves are 
> unsatisfactory (both in form, and what was chosen to be a gismu). I 
> remain in the lojban community to discuss the grammar as well as 
> offer suggestions into how the words could be better done (not just 
> pointing out why they are unsatisfactory).
> 

Well, it would help it you did make clear just in what ways they are 
unsatisfactory. that would lead almost directly to suggestion about how they 
could be better done. But remember that it is a defining feature of Lojban 
that the gismu are constructed from the phonetic material of the 
corresponding concept expressions in the base languages. This limits the 
possibilities for change to 1) a new choice of languages (but the stats on 
language use have not changed much in the last 10 years), 2) a different 
algorithm (really?) for constructing Lojban words from those languages, 3) a 
different choice of words in various languages for representing the concepts 
(I suspect there is now the collective expertise to do something useful in 
that respect), and 4) choosing different concepts to begin with (maybe more 
semantic primes rather than high frequency -- but complex -- words). In any 
case, clear statements about what the obbjections or the suggestions are are 
much to be preferred (by the hearers and , for practical effectiveness -- 
though this is all moot -- by the presenter).

--part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 11/29/2001 6:09:42 AM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">the words themselves are <BR>
unsatisfactory (both in form, and what was chosen to be a gismu). I <BR>
remain in the lojban community to discuss the grammar as well as <BR>
offer suggestions into how the words could be better done (not just <BR>
pointing out why they are unsatisfactory).<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Well, it would help it you did make clear just in what ways they are unsatisfactory.&nbsp; that would lead almost directly to suggestion about how they could be better done.&nbsp; But remember that it is a defining feature of Lojban that the gismu are constructed from the phonetic material of the corresponding concept expressions in the base languages.&nbsp; This limits the possibilities for change to 1) a new choice of languages (but the stats on language use have not changed much in the last 10 years), 2) a different algorithm (really?) for constructing Lojban words from those languages, 3) a different choice of words in various languages for representing the concepts (I suspect there is now the collective expertise to do something useful in that respect), and 4) choosing different concepts to begin with (maybe more semantic primes rather than high frequency -- but complex -- words).&nbsp; In any case, clear statements about what the obbjections or the suggestions are are much to be preferred (by the hearers and , for practical effectiveness -- though this is all moot -- by the presenter).</FONT></HTML>

--part1_a6.1d88f4b9.2937a696_boundary--

