From araizen@newmail.net Sat Oct 21 13:22:42 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 21 Oct 2000 20:22:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 9373 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2000 20:22:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Oct 2000 20:22:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.51.26) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Oct 2000 20:22:41 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.180.47]) by out.newmail.net ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 22:24:06 +00:00 To: lojban@egroups.com Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:51:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: RE:literalism Reply-to: araizen@newmail.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <972131813.25843@egroups.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-ID: <97219224701@out.newmail.net> From: "Adam Raizen" pycyn cusku di'e > There are an infinite number of lujvo, too, and tanru are also limited (by > human capacity) to a"reasonable size" (in fact, probably less complex than > reasonable lujvo, because tanru are longer, by and large). Each lujvo has only one stress, which makes a long one harder to pronounce than the corresponding tanru. (Also 'ke's can be omitted at the break between the (sel)brivla in a tanru.) When a lujvo I'm making starts to get too long, I generally try to break it into a tanru of lujvo. Still, to aid communication and to avoid malrarbanki'i habits, I try to think of tanru in the same way as lujvo. > we obviously > select one meaning for a tanru each time we use it Irrelevant to your point, but there are some interesting cases that can be interpreted in more than one way, like 'glico bangu' (ge glico gi bangu lo glico). co'o mi'e adam