From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Jan 04 18:35:38 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 5 Jan 2002 02:35:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 18052 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2002 02:35:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2002 02:35:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2002 02:35:37 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g052ZXq13229 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:35:30 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16MggE-0000ZS-00 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 21:35:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 21:35:30 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] je (was: crdlus. critique) Message-ID: <20020105023530.GL1109@twcny.rr.com> References: <20020104235804.GI1109@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 08:01:22PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > Is it really malglico to think of a block as being primarily a block, and > secondarily red? Perhaps it is. But all that tells me is that the object > is a bliku xunre as much as it a xunre bliku, not that I should waste a > syllable putting them on the same categorical level. But a bliku xunre could be a block used by red things, or something of the sort. I didn't say that a {xunre je bliku} is not a {xunre bliku}, but that it is more specific. > > > But let's leave it out where it adds no meaning; it's another syllable. > > > > It adds precision and avoids malglico, at the expense of only one > > syllable. > > > > Would you say that people should never say {pilno le skami} because it's > > one syllable more than {skami pilno}? > > > There is a difference in breadth of meaning in the skami pilno case that I > don't see with your use of je. Switching the order and dropping the je > "avoids malglico" with xunre bliku, except that there was really nothing > wrong with the original order, therefore, nothing actually malglico. Could you clarify what the difference is? {broda brode} is used to mean various things. Some of the most common meanings are {broda je brode}, {brode le broda}, and {brode lenu broda}. Since {broda brode} can be any of the three, it is often useful to use the longer version, which is why it is generally better to say {mi pilno le skami} or {mi sazri le skami} than {mi skami pilno} or {mi skami sazri}. There really is only one meaning, in most contexts, for {mi skami sazri}. It doesn't make sense to operate an abstraction, and I am probably not a computer that uses a tool. Yet people do say things like {mi sazri le skami} even with one "extra" syllable. > And > yes, in general, if a syllable adds no meaning, drop it! There is no > difference between a red type-of block, a blockish sort of red thing, or a > thing both blockish and red. You can let context take the place of clarity, saving a few syllables along the way, very easily in Lojban. Michael Helsem's tanru are proof of that. So why don't we all speak Lojban like him? Things like {xunre bliku} only seem clear to us because when reading Lojban we translate pretty much word-for-word into English. -- le me la rab.spir co gumri sarji