Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Archive location.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:46:07 EDT

In a message dated 9/10/2002 9:18:05 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> The lujvo in the lujvo list are almost entirely literal... In fact,
> I don't believe I've seen a single figurative one from it yet, and
> this is the source for all my lujvo needs (I think one-off inventions
> of lujvo are generally not worth it; or at least i'm not fast enough
> with it for real conversations, and I don't desire the meaning of
> my utterances to be changed after the fact when that lujvo gets a
> real, assigned, dictionary definition).
> 
> Culling things out for length is good; starting with metaphorical
> crud that only works based on interpreting things in an english
> context is not.
>>

The lujvo list I have is pretty much taken up by chicken-shit forms like 
{selbroda} from {se broda} and a few 2nd-place inclusions. It has yet to 
turn up a wors I have needed for anything and I don't do very recondite 
stuff. 
What is the actual source of this list? It looks like an exercise in 
creating just such lujvo, without any regard to practical needs. It is 
surely not based on actual text, since the good ones I have ssen are not 
there and the ones there turn up in text only after the fact and as used by 
newbies who haven't got the hand of making their own.
I am sorry to hear that Jordan has so little to say that this list is 
adequate for his purposes (or that he strains it to such an extent that he 
can make it work). 
Of course, he may have a different list from the one I have, Nick & Nora as 
of 12/00 -- purporting to be a comilation of something or other unspecified 
(but containing no Helmsem, for example).