Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont delayed response to Jorge

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
>Subject:      Re: CPE: Corliss Lamont
>
>la markl di'e cusku
>> > It is important when you create a lujvo to
>> > account for all the places of the component
>> > gismu, not just for their x1 places.
>>
>> When I did that for {gimterzbavla}, la lojbab.
>> seemingly implied the opposite.
>
>It wouldn't be the first time lojbab and I disagreed about something.

la lojbab clarifies:  I did not mean to imply the opposite.  I merely
said that >I< feel no compulsion to account for anything.  I coin lujvo
on the fly without detailed analysis and USE them.  I don't much care
that the words be perfectly in accordance with a convention that we have
strongly declared to be *optional*, especially since I suspect that we
will not be able to manage/enforce that convention if indeed the
language starts to take off.

It is nice. in my opinion, that some people want to analyze these words
using the convention techniques, perhaps suggesting alternatives.
Likely, it is those alternatives that will make it into a long-term
dictionary and remain there, for the simple reason that they DO have
analyzed place structures.

But if I were to stop and analyze every lujvo that I ever coined for
"correctness", I would never get anything said.  (I still plan on
completing my oft-postponed translation of the Scheherezade story from
Burton's Arabian Nights, and it has several lujvo per sentence).  The
risk of miscommunication of a stream of text (assuming sufficient
context to help resolve such difficulties as I had with Mark's
science-fictional coinage) does not justify it.

>This is how I would interpret {gimterzbavla}:
>
>gimterzba [gismu te zbasu]: tz1 (tz2=g1) tz3 g2
>                            x1 is the material x2 used
>                            to make a gismu for relationship x3

Your analysis omits the -vla, but then perhaps the -vla is superfluous
or even incorrect since some gismu were coined using morphemes from the
source languages that were not words.

I would/did not misunderstand this particular lujvo coined by Mark.

lojbab