Re: cukta

[Nick NICHOLAS <nsn@vis.mu.oz.au>]

Hu'tegh! nuq ja' ucleaar jay'?

=A couple of years ago I wrote on Lojban list that it would be in keeping
=with the explicitness of the description of Lojban syntax and that
=part of semantics treatable in formal, logical ways, if the meanings
=of gismu (and lujvo etc) were given explicit prototype definitions.
=That is, to me the spirit of the Lojban enterprise is its explicitness,
=not its use of logic, or what have you.

I suppose I didn't know about prototype semantics back then; now that I do
--- you, And, are a *legend*! (Well, you'd have to be. Aren't you the only
professional linguist on this list? ;) ). You're absolutely right. In fact,
combining Natural Semantic Metalanguage (to give your definitions a grounding
in primitives) with Prototype semantics *and* predicate logic... wow. The
world is our oyster.

I *strongly* recommend people (including you, Lojbab ;)) have a look at
Anna Wierzbicka's Dictionary of Speech Act Verbs. I think it shows what
And's envisaged deluxe dictionary should look like. And I strongly think it
would be linguistically very worthwhile work.

Nick.