Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.)

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 20:38:35 -0500

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:20:09AM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:00:03PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Robin CA:
> > > > The whole *point* of lujvo, unless I'm missing something, is that
> > > > someone should be able to dissect them and figure out what you mean.
> > > 
> > > Not so. Lujvo are simply a means of creating new words for new
> > > meanings. However, other things being equal (e.g. word length),
> > > a candidate lujvo is held to be the more superior the more its
> > > meaning and place structure can be guessed from its constituent
> > > parts.
> > 
> > I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. 8)
> 
> Not. It is not the case that the whole point of lujvo is that someone
> should be able to dissect them and figure out what you mean. The
> whole point of lujvo is that they are words formed from parts that
> have independent meaning within Lojban, but with a meaning that is
> not equivalent to the sum of their parts. Their dissectablity is not
> their point.

.ieru'e

Right: lujvo are just more words. The mapping back to gismu,
however, is useful in that it allows hints to their meaning, along
with some control over how they get created (instead of just random
word forms being choosen). zo balcukta is more or less random
assignment of meaning to a compound who's source tanru has at worst
nothing to do with anything (neither the banli nor the cukta parts),
or at best stands on very shaky metaphorical grounds.

-- 
Jordan DeLong
[email-masked]