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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:39 -0400

At 09:46 AM 9/11/02 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>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.

The existing lujvo list consists entirely of words for which place 
structures had been worked out in accordance with Nick's lujvo-making 
rules, specifically the words that Nick himself analyzed in order to derive 
those rules, to which were added the basic conversions which of course have 
standard analytical place structures.

Thus it is self-defining to say that all the lujvo in the lujvo list are 
literal. Only literal lujvo have had place structures defined for them, 
and only lujvo with defined place structures make it to the lujvo list.

When people define place structures for some of the other lujvo, then they 
can be added to the list.

>What is the actual source of this list?

Nick's analysis was based on the lujvo that had been used in text up until 
when he did the analysis in mid 1993. Since he was advocating for dikyjvo 
rules, he made up new lujvo for the same concept that did follow his rules 
as part of the process. Thus all words he analyzed are dikyjvo, as are all 
the words made from conversions. (However, Nick did not always follow his 
rules perfectly, as Nora determined - the list has her name on it because I 
made a file for her to reanalyze, not because she made any changes in 
Nick's work.)

> It looks like an exercise in creating just such lujvo, without any 
> regard to practical needs.

We have files of thousands of lujvo on the web site waiting for people to 
write place structures for them. Nick provided keywords for around half of 
them, which suggest that the other half are not obviously "literal", since 
Nick felt that we needed to look at the context to find out what they were 
intended to mean. No one has done that work.

> 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.

If someone starts collecting new lujvo with place structures, then they'll 
get added to the list. Pragmatism demands that this not be done 1 word at 
a time, when we have thousands of such words that need to be added.

>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).

I can't read Jordan's posts (since they show up as .ems file attachments in 
my mailer) without special effort), so unless someone quotes him, I don't 
see what he says and cannot comment.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org