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

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 02:00:24 +0200

la .and. cusku di'e

> Literalistic lujvo are good -- things like footfinger = toe,
> handshoe = glove.

Those are only literalistic if you would be willing to say that a toe
is a finger and a glove is a shoe, without any qualitification.

> Note that whereas "brode broda" has an infinitude
> of possible meanings, "brode zei broda" has exactly one,
determinate,
> meaning.

Of course, but it isn't clear what the exactly one meaning is. Some
seem to think that it is any meaning decided on (probably the most
useful one). I think that that meaning should be the sum of the parts
in the sense that the meaning of the lujvo should be the exact meaning
of the disambiguated tanru that the lujvo is based one. Thus,
everything is a xancutci if and only if it is a cutci lo xance, and
xancutci is not allowed to have any meaning which is not provided by
xance and cutci. In practice, I haven't had much trouble with concepts
that cannot be expressed with the existing gismu.

> But things like selbroda = se broda are an
> abomination. If I see "se broda" if have to consult the lexical
> entry for "broda" to see what the phrase means, but if I see
> "selbroda" I have to consult the lexical entry for "selbroda"
> -- the very fact of using the lujvo implies that the meaning
> is NOT "se broda".

Since there is only one possible interpretation for 'se broda', I
think that it's clear that 'selbroda' has the same meaning.

mu'o mi'e .adam.