From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 13 09:07:45 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 16:07:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 24977 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 16:07:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 16:07:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 16:07:44 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.181.e51cf1a (4584)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:07:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <181.e51cf1a.2ab36748@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:07:36 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_181.e51cf1a.2ab36748_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_181.e51cf1a.2ab36748_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/12/2002 4:13:13 PM Central Daylight Time, 
araizen@newmail.net writes:

<<
> I like lujvo that are exactly the
> sum of their parts, and so far I have had relatively good luck with
> them. (i.e. if I think long enough I can generally come up with a good
> literalistic lujvo whose intended meaning is exactly the sum of its
> parts.)
>>
I suspect that this is trivially true: once you find an expression you like, 
you can then interpret the words involved and the way they are put together 
to exactly what you had in mind. Whether anyone else will unpack it the same 
way depends a lot on where their head is. Every lujbvo begins wirth a 
selection from the meanings of the underlying tanru and there are no rules 
(not even dikyjvo -- a case in point) for how this selection is to be made. 
One may be "obvious" in the context -- but obviosity is in the eye of the 
beholder.

--part1_181.e51cf1a.2ab36748_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 9/12/2002 4:13:13 PM Central Daylight Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
&lt;&lt;<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I like lujvo that are exactly the<BR>
sum of their parts, and so far I have had relatively good luck with<BR>
them. (i.e. if I think long enough I can generally come up with a good<BR>
literalistic lujvo whose intended meaning is exactly the sum of its<BR>
parts.)</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
&gt;&gt;<BR>
I suspect that this is trivially true: once you find an expression you like, you can then interpret the words involved and the way they are put together to exactly what you had in mind.&nbsp; Whether anyone else will unpack it the same way depends a lot on where their head is.&nbsp; Every lujbvo begins wirth a selection from the meanings of the underlying tanru and there are no rules (not even dikyjvo -- a case in point) for how this selection is to be made.&nbsp; One may be "obvious" in the context -- but obviosity is in the eye of the beholder.<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_181.e51cf1a.2ab36748_boundary--

