From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Jun 28 18:19:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19928 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 01:19:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jun 2000 01:19:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 01:19:54 -0000 Received: from bob (237.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.237]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5T1JrJ95276 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:19:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000628210547.00aecce0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:20:22 -0400 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] bacrynandu drata In-Reply-To: <20000629003956.79887.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 05:39 PM 06/28/2000 -0700, michael helsem wrote: > >From: Taral > li'o > > > ko tcidu le mupli pe li bipi'epa zi'e petu'i le somoi > > > cuktypau (See example 8.1 in the 9th chapter of the Book.) > > > >Very good, but shouldn't that be "ckupau"? > >vlina (Either/or.) To clarify, all combinations of rafsi for the same tanru, when properly formed and connected, represent the same word with identical meaning. Thus ckupau = cuktypau = cuktypagbu = ckupagbu. Usually the shortest form is the preferred form, but oftentimes the fully expanded form will be seen, especially when beginners are talking or listening, because it requires no knowledge of the short rafsi. A few other mixed forms are common, such as using expanded forms except for short "mau" (more) in the final position for a comparative because most people know it (always used even if it may sometimes be possible to get a shorter word using a different rafsi for zmadu). A major thing we wanted to avoid was having the same tanru being used to make several different words having different meanings. JCB and TLI took the approach that the dictionary-makers would choose one correct form to be used by all; I chose instead to say that all forms were valid and synonymous. Longer forms being equivalent later turned out to have an advantage,when we became concerned about lack of redundancy in the lujvo space: while a high percentage of words of form CVVCCV (for example among lujvo forms) are possibly legitimate Lojban words, mishearing a word as something else meaningful is way too easy. But with the ability to use expanded forms, we have a built in equivalent of the alfa/bravo/charlie system which expands English in a noisy environment to prevent errors. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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