From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Jul 16 18:23:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 01:23:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 92942 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 01:23:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 01:23:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta3 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 01:23:15 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (47.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.47]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6H1NEY97344 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716211559.00c2aca0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:27:18 -0400 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010715102345.00be12b0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 12:35 AM 07/17/2001 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > >What I mean is that someone called Sally gets called "la salis." rather > > >than "la sali.". Why? Why not "la sali."? > > > > Because "sali" is neither a cmene ending in a consonant nor a brivla, and > > therefore it is ungrammatical. > >I'll take your word for it. > > > Indeed sali breaks into two words, so the listener might take that string > > as "la sa li". > >This seems a bogus argument, since it applies also to licit cmene, such >as "la salis." No because a bare name is permitted as a vocative standing alone. In that situation, salis. does not break up (because sa lis. would not be a name, with lis being preceded by other than a pause, la/lai/la'i, or doi.) > > If you are suggesting that we could have permitted anything to be a name, > > so long as it ended in a pause, so that "la" opens it and the pause closes > > it, then you eliminate the possibility of a bare (unmarked) vocative like > > "djan.". > >I didn't know that unmarked vocatives were allowed, Only at the start of text, a concession to natural language. > but at any rate, they >would be excluded by a rule that says names introduced by la (etc.) >terminate at the first /./. But they don't. You can be la .and. rostas. for example. > > "mi klama le zarci" would have to be interpreted as a vocative > > call to someone named "miklamalezarci". > >I think you are getting confused between cmene and cmevla. I am confused as to the referent of those terms as you are using them, yes. > I suggest that >we could have permitted anything to occur as a LA cmene, not that >everything ending in a pause would be a cmevla. It isn't entirely clear what we COULD have done, but at the time we made the decision, we could have *considered* only that which mimicked JCB's design. > Now my daughter's middle name is Katrina, and it was offered to her (she > > chose it from a list not knowing its Lojban sense) deliberately in > > recognition of the ability to then call her "la ka trina" which teenage > > boys certainly seem to feel is an apt name. > >What do you call her? La katrina ku? La angela.? The latter is invalid Lojban because of the "la" in the name, so she is either la katrina [ku] or la anDJElys. (which is actually the Russian pronunciation she originally used). But she as a teenager is embarrassed by the former; what teen wants their parents calling them "Attractiveness" even in another language %^) 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