Subject: Re: [lojban] cmegadri valfendi preti

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:25:42 -0500

At 02:20 PM 12/4/02 -0500, Pierre wrote:
>Another question: why is the cmegadri broken off from what precedes it,

To make life easy. The goal, as I've said before, is to make it easy for 
the listener/processor. There exist possible fu'ivla and possible cmene 
which could in theory be separated, but which might be more difficult in 
some environments, or where coming up with a concise statement of the rule 
is not possible.

Since maximizing the use of these is NOT a Lojban design priority, we opted 
for the easy to state rule, rather than a more difficult rule that might 
allow some perfectly resolvable names or fu'ivla, but where the learner 
will have trouble with the rule.

>instead of just breaking between the cmene and the cmegadri and leaving the
>cmegadri to be found later? What about {MUstelaVIson} and {muSTElaVIson}? How
>should they be analyzed?

The former looks to me like "muste la vison"; the latter like an error 
because I want to see it as "mu stela vison", which is ungrammatical - the 
name cannot be preceded by a gismu, but only by "la" or doi".

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