Lojban names and fu'ivla

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:12:56 -0400
> From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
> >From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
> >In Lojban, the name/non-name distinction is both morphological and
> >semanticosyntactic.  Morphologically, the situation is similar to
> >Livagian, in that names are always distinguishable from non-names,
> >though unlike in Livagian, it's impossible for Lojban names to be
> >homonyms (because in Lojban names don't denote anything; they're merely
> >ad hoc labels for whichever specific individuals the speaker wishes to
> >apply them to).  Syntactically, the names function as syntactic
> >arguments referring to individuals.  If you wanted the name to denote a
> >predicate the best one can do is to create a "fuivla", a predicate
> >denoting lexeme characterized by certain morphologically properties:  a
> >fuivla isn't a compound and can't be a constituent of a (morphological)
> >compound, and it must obey some fearsomely complex phonotactic
> >constraints.  Fuivla can't be homonyms, though.
> >
> >Overall I think the Livagian system is better (- of course, for if I
> >thought the Lojban system superior, that's how Livagian would work too!
> >[Needless to say, part of the appeal of Lojban is that it is susceptible
> >to criticisms such as these, since it aspires to be rational in
> >preference to being a near facsimile of natural languages]), because
> >it's easier for names (= more readily homonymous and neologizable,
> >phonotactically less constrained) to denote predicates.  Sometimes it's
> >adequate for them to denote individuals, as in
> Remember of course that names are fu'ivla, specifically of the "type 2"
> variety, where type 1 is delimited quoted text, and type 3 is what you
> are presumably referring to as fu'ivla.  Each type is morphologically
> distinct from the other types, and some are syntactically so.  The
> latter means that a given type of fu'ivla may need to undergo some kind
> of grammatical trnsformation with cmavo in order to fit some broader
> semantosyntactic (or philosophoical) category, like "predicate".

I think only cmevla (end with consonant, etc) are fuivla, but not all
cmene (e.g. la gerku). Is that right? I was talking about cmene in
general. 

I don't think there are established ways to convert anything into
predicates. There's {me}, but with prescribed and limited semantics,
and creating a 1-place predicate. But there's nothing else. 

And