From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Aug 14 10:26:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 17:26:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 48703 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 17:26:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 17:26:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 17:26:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7EHQE502697 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:26:14 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: Attitudes towards Lujvo (was: selma'o considered harmful In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010814072308.00bbd800@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 11:25 PM 8/13/01 -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > >I'm unconvinced selma'o as used to mean 'lexeme' is not an error. > > There is no such thing as an error in word usage, if it successfully > communicates. It is metaphorical to liken these non-cmavo word categories > to "se cmavo". Maybe only Helsem and me think that metaphorical usages in > Lojban are tolerable. Keep in mind that Nick Nicholas hates the lujvo "balcukta" for the Web. Although they are pages that get read, it's not Book enough for him. So you will never convince him of this usage, which even I would find confusing had I encountered it before this discussion (I never noticed it used that way anywhere). This bizarre and counterintuitive usage is a breath of fresh air where otherwise word creation and usage is scrutinized like the design of a pacemaker. ----- "I have never been active in politics or in any act against occupation, but the way the soldiers killed Mizyed has filled me with hatred and anger. Now I'm ready to carry out a suicide attack inside Israel," one of the witnesses said.