[lojban] Re: larger brodV - what do you think
Adam D. Lopresto
handy for that. (Actually, za'e doesn't seem to be assigned as a rafsi to
anything.) Or you could go the type 3 fu'ivla route, and prefix your
words with brodr-, which would pretty well mark them as nonportable, while
giving you a large space of legal words. And as far as I can tell, it
would be perfectly baseline compliant, and pretty easily understandable.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Oleg Leschov wrote:
> Sometimes in engeneering practice (especially in software engineering),
> when designing some complex abstract system, there is a need to
> introduce new terms that would have concrete meaning in this system and
> are needed to be referenced frequently. I might preciecely define their
> semantical meaning using some common terms, or other specific terms like
> that. These terms may also be called "semantical macros", perhaps. So
> the point is, that it would be beneficial to give them some shorter and
> more sounding ids than "the thing described here and there", perhaps a
> whole new word or phrase, and to use it in any further work on the same
> subject.
>
> Of cause, I could just introduce a new terminology, but that might
> contradict (collide) with some already existing one, and so I would have
> to care for unambiguity in the text.
>
> So the idea is to create some entirely new and comparably short words
> for things I need, and maybe even later morph them by the lojban
> compound words creation rules. However, the words created for specific
> documents need not to be able to be found in all-time official lojban
> dictionary some day - they should have their meaning then and only then
> when the context somehow contains the document or a system that they
> were defined in (for).
>
> This means that they are a kind of "variables" (brodV and others) that
> lojban already has. Unlike these, however, the terms should be more
> sounding, and it should be possible to combine them by the rules of
> lojban morphology. Also, their possible meaning should not be limited to
> 1-place brivla - predicate of any valid number of places should be
> definable (using some general kind of description, perhaps).
>
> So I could just take any lojbanly-legal word as gismu for my new term
> and use that. But of cause this approach I do not like, for in the
> future, this particular gismu or their combination might acquire some
> completely different meaning.
>
> So what would I like to have is large enough "name space" the words from
> which could be used to represent local terminology, and which maybe
> could also be used generally, in case if speaker prefers them to things
> like "broda, by, my, ny" and the like.
>
> Any thoughts? Are there any possible yet unused namespaces that could be
> forever assigned the special meaning - no meaning outside of any valid
> context, not breaking existing lojban syntax?
>
> By namespaces I mean things like CCVCV + CVCCV - they are now gismu with
> universal meaning... Another example is existing brodV - this looks like
> a namespace I am talking about, but it is somewhat small for this task.
> There should be at least a couple of hundreds of words in it IMHO, that
> should be vocally broad (I mean, using all lojban sounds) so that the
> text that relies on them alot would look and sound nice.
>
> Note that I am myself not too competent in lojban yet because I've
> discovered it on the net somewhat recently (and hence I didn't propose
> any specific solution yet). So I think this language has quite a
> potential for technical and abstract definitions, and thus it could
> benefit from such a linguistic device.
>
>
>
>
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take
effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]
Oleg Leschov
Rob Speer
> Well, there's za'e. Too bad za'e doesn't have a rafsi; it would be pretty
> handy for that. (Actually, za'e doesn't seem to be assigned as a rafsi to
> anything.) Or you could go the type 3 fu'ivla route, and prefix your
> words with brodr-, which would pretty well mark them as nonportable, while
> giving you a large space of legal words. And as far as I can tell, it
> would be perfectly baseline compliant, and pretty easily understandable.
That is a nice extension - you could get a whole lot of words simply of
the form brodrfu, brodrba, etc. Of course, the brodr- part still gets
repetitive, and you can't get rafsi from them.
--
mu'o mi'e rab.spir
Invent Yourself
spam these days, and an unfamiliar sending name, I deleted it.
--
Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a
reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by
means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment,
destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is
fear.