From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 13 05:12:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 12:12:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 92172 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 12:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:11 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-189.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.189]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3575C26AF9 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:12:10 +0200 (DST) To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:13:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020913030412.GA3889@mit.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Rob: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:29:57PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > Literalistic lujvo are good -- things like footfinger = toe, > > handshoe = glove. Note that whereas "brode broda" has an infinitude > > of possible meanings, "brode zei broda" has exactly one, determinate, > > meaning. 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". > > Several components of lujvo - 'nu', 'ni', 'se', 'gasnu', 'zmadu', et > cetera - have consistent and defined meanings. Lujvo like "selbroda" > bother me because they are useless and are often constructed just so > that one word in English becomes one word in Lojban - not because I > think it doesn't actually mean "se broda". But things like "brodygau" > are far too useful to demand that every one should be individually > listed in the dictionary before it can be used. > > What we need is a thorough list of these standard components of lujvo, > not to deny their existence. Lojban does not have a semantically regular derivational morphology. Hence a lujvo automatically carries with it its own guarantee that it is listed (and defined) in the Ideal Dictionary. The regularity of nu/ni/gau/mau etc. is a statistical pattern in usage and is in Jimc & Nick's jvajvo recommendations of good practise. But they are not part of the grammar of Lojban. --And.