From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jul 07 16:30:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30627 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 23:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 23:30:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.241) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 23:30:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 82135 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jul 2000 23:30:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000707233012.82134.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.168 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:30:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.168] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: zi'o & otpi (was: RE: [lojban] So, wait til you feel a cold no-nose Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:30:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >The language >will either be defined by usage, in which case its grammar will >be relatively vague and indeterminate, or it will be defined by >formal documentation, in which case usage will largely be >irrelevant. In some cases formal documentation may follow usage. Suppose that in 2015 someone decides to publish a Lojban dictionary and instead of just taking them from the gismu list, for the gismu places they ask a panel of 100 fluent Lojbanists about some place structures that they're not too sure about. They ask what they think are the place structures without looking them up. Then if there is enough agreement among the speakers on a place structure different than the gihuste's they print that preferred place structure. If the dictionary becomes authoritative it would be a definition by formal documentation based on usage. >(Presumably, until computers are as intelligent as >people, computers would have to speak the formally documented >version.) Computers can't speak any version at all for the moment, so there is time to document the actually used version if it differs from what is defined. >So better than zi'oing off unwanted places, or pretending they're >not there, is to use some alternative brivla. If VCCV fu'ivla >really are kosher then they are an attractive solution, since >they're even shorter than gismu, They are not very attractive to me, and the shortness is more than compensated by the obligatory preceding pause. >So, for example, if you want a word for >"bottle such that something actually is a bottle even when >it's empty", then you could use "otpi" (with, in lujvo, the >same rafsi as "botpi"). If "otpi" were as well-documented as >"botpi", it'd stand a chance of competing against it in usage, >and then usage really would tell you which was the more popular. "otpi" would probably only be used to mean "empty bottle", because there is a much better alternative for non-empty ones. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com