From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 13 05:12:14 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 12:12:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 55202 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 12:12:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 12:12:13 -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 A32CF272E7 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:12:11 +0200 (DST) To: "Lojban List" Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:13:48 +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: <00a601c25ab8$918fd500$42b6003e@default> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Adam: > 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. Okay. "Greenhouse" or "blackboard" then. > > 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). Yes. > 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. I don't understand what the rule or principle you are advocating here is. A lujvo is not based on a tanru. It is not unreasonable to define xancutci as cutci lo xance, but I can't see how this can be the product of any general rule or principle. > > 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. Certainly not. It's reasonable to suppose that if x is selbroda then x is se broda (though the grammar of Lojban does not guarantee that), but it is certainly not reasonable to suppose that if x is se broda then x is selbroda. The job of lujvo is to express meanings that are not adequately expressible by the other words in the lexicon. If you can express a given meaning without a lujvo, then don't use a lujvo. For example, if you want to talk about things with one horn, then don't use {pavyseljirna}, because that doesn't mean "thing with one horn"; it means "unicorn". --And.