From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Oct 20 02:15:20 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 09:15:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 8674 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 09:15:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 09:15:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 09:15:19 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic248.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.248]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9K9Pap49062; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:25:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001020050825.00b62600@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 05:19:12 -0400 To: Invent Yourself , lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: literalism [was: Re: [lojban] Re: looking at arjlujv.txt In-Reply-To: References: <8snn9d+v19k@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 05:08 PM 10/19/2000 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: >On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, [iso-8859-1] Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting) wrote: > > I'm all other than sure about this well-sounding statement: there are > > real horrible-looking (-sounding) lujvo monsters, maybe > > only appropriate for silly machines (sometimes worse than Assembler > > encoded text). > > I'm pleading for short-/conciseness rather than pedantic > > descriptiveness. (That doesn't mean that I do not agree with xorxes. > > to > > "respect" the places, or with maikl. to avoid fancy metaphors). Lujvo > > should be "convincing" from their meaning and concise to > > keep them in memory (they should become "lokshe"). > >Lujvo are not as commonly needed as is commonly thought. There should be a >lujvo for toothbrush, but do we need one for rapist? If we want to talk about someone who commits the crime of rape, we need a word for the crime and the perpetrator. Certainly a tanru will get bothersome if repeated multiple times in the discussion. >"Rapist", recalling >the long discussions held recently, fought by about 5 equally valid and >conflicting positions, is a word that cries out for a specific tanru when >it is introduced into a discussion. So probably we need (at least) 5 lujvo for rapist, each with its own valid place structure and emphasizing some aspect that the speaker is trying to access. There probably is no short lujvo that will capture all uses of the English word "rape". Probably "force-sex-crime" will work in most but leave loopholes - places we would use English "rape" that don't fit, and maybe a few situations where the word would fit that are not expressed with English "rape". >Rather than isolate the canonical >definition among the several closely-related yet different choices offered >during the debate, a tanru would specify the exact spin desired. So would a lujvo made from that tanru. Those among us who would make lujvo, would do so as abbreviations for a tanru that we might need to use often enough even in one piece of writing to make writing (and reading) the tanru cumbersome. Indeed, I think that the best way to introduce a coined lujvo is to use the defining metaphor the first time and then parenthetically add the lujvo form which would be used in later places instead of the tanru. 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