Re: help? (Todd Crane)

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

Your tanru and lujvo making is right in principle, but I'm not
certain it works in detail.

	ka skami ke ka cenba cartu

is a well-formed tanru, but I don't think it means what you want, and it's
got some grammatical baggage in it.

	cenba cartu	=	varying kind of map
	ka cenba cartu [kei] =	quality of (something being a)
					varying map
				(this can go into tanru like a brivla,
				so the 'ke' you have adds nothing)
	skami ka cenba cartu = 	computer kind of quality of varying map
	ka skami ka cenba cartu =  quality of (something being a)
					computer kind of quality of being
					a varying map

I can't quite get my mind round this, but whatever it is it isn't any kind of
map.
Your original suggestion is actually closer:

	skami cenba cartu	= (computer kind of varying/variable)
					kind of map

In context, I think it might do quite well. It's a kind of map that varies,
the varying having something to do with a computer. If you wanted to get that
the varying is done by the computer a bit more clearly, try

	skami se galfi cartu	= (computer kind of (modified [by something])
					kind of map.

I disagree with you about the "ke":

	skami ke cenba cartu	= computer kind of (varying map)

which is certainly what the thing is, but seems to me *less* not more
precise.


I actually think that your search for a more precise lujvo is misguided. Lujvo
have a certain degree of transparency - they are to have one of the plausible
meanings of their parent tanru - but, particularly when expressing a
complicated and unfamiliar term, they are not the best tool - unless, of
course they are already established and in the nu'o dictionary.

It's all a matter of clarity and audience. In my Quine paper, I coined some
four and five term lujvo, and introduced them with "za'e" as you did (and with
"ca'e" as well in some cases). This was acceptible I believe because
	I needed to refer to them, again, so wanted words
	I defined them when using them.

I think for this process (za'e + new complicated lujvo) to be acceptible,
either it must get defined (explicitly or by extension) or the text should be
aimed at people who are likely to recognise the concept anyway.

Your rafsi manipulation is all correct, as far as I can see, except that you
don't need "y" in "-mk-" or "-mc-" (you DO need it after the 4-letter rafsi).

Congratulations on "le'avla" - you are quite correct, it does mean "taker word"
and is therefore a rather poor lujvo. "selyle'avla" would be much better,
but what a mouthful!

No, there isn't a lujvo dictionary (anywhere).

This is entirely the right place for such question. Keep em coming.

	kolin