Re: Ethnic Gismu, Learning

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

Giuliano:
> >In any case, I really don't see much difference between Esperanto mal- and
> >Lojban tol-.
> The matter, I think, is more complex: it involves the role of composition
> and derivation in language. Lojban does not make use of derivation: in
> principle, you shouldn't have Esperanto-style affixes at your disposal.

But the fact is that we do. {tolbroda} is always {to'e broda}, which is
a derivation of {broda}. There are not many clear affixes like this one,
but there are some. (e.g. nal-, sel-, etc)

> Lojban does make use of composition instead: lexical composition in lujvo,
> phrasal composition in tanru. The reasons usually given for the necessity of
> composition are practical in nature: to avoid tanru (and, in a lesser
> extent, lujvo), you should employ clumsy wordings, which would make
> sentences lengthy.

That's how I see it too, but it doesn't explain all lujvo.

> My opinion is that a logical language should give up composition too
> entirely: tanru should not be an option, and function words (even very
> generic ones, with argument structures of the type x1 is relative to x2)
> should be used instead.

Yes, or at least it should have as clear rules of composition as possible.
Lojban has tended towards that, but lujvo making is still quite chaotic.

> As to adjective-like tanru (e.g. 'blanu drudi'), I
> think that the standard treatment in Montague semantics (something like 'x1
> is a roof & x1 is blue') could work as well.

In that case you can make it clear by using {je}: {blanu je drudi}.
{blanu drudi} will probably be understood as that too, but {drudi blanu}
probably not.

> Please do your remarks; I am an absolute beginner to lojban, and surely I
> miss something, or even the point.

Not at all, I think the topic of lujvo making needs a lot more discussion.

Jorge