Re: 'Letteral' (Was: comments on the batch of lujvo etc. psoted thus far

[Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Lojbab writes:
> "Complex" is only mildly less gross for "lujvo" - though And
> obviously thinks it an appropriate gloss %^).

I will own that And is bolshy & stubborn and truly exhibits
many of the properties attributed to him from time to time
by Lojbab, but knowing And as well as I may justly claim
to do, I cannot see why he would think "complex" an
appropriate gloss for "lujvo". True, lujvo are complex,
but so is language, and And does not think "complex" a
good gloss for "bangu" either. He does, however, think
that a good gloss for "lujvo" is "compound word", and
"bound morpheme" a good gloss for "rafsi". On a straight
choice between "glyph" and "letteral" as a gloss for "lerfu"
he prefers the former, because altho it is a rare English
word it is known beyond lei lojbo prenu, but he holds that
"grapheme" might be considered as a useful though not
wholly accurate gloss. However, he suggests that "lerfu"
be extended beyond visual marks, that it may encompass
"phoneme", with "glyph" then expressed by some lujvo
formed from "lerfu".

----
mihelahozdu. And zdu.