[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 5/5/02 8:33 PM, Rob Speer at rob@hidden.email wrote: > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:47:38PM -0600, Rex May - Baloo wrote: >> Before we get too deep into 'opposites', does anyone know what the rationale >> was in changing Loglan 2-placers with the meaning x1 is greener, bigger, >> smarter) than x2, to one-placers in Lojban? > > Because it made no sense whatsoever to have colors be comparatives? Actually, that's what I always thought. It seemed like they were groping for some kind of meaning for x2, and that was all they could come up with. > > In the Loglan system, the natural way of saying "This is not blue" > asserted that it was the least blue thing in the Universe. This was > among a multitude of other problems. There is no reason we cannot > describe colors objectively; we do not need to compare to something > else. Basically, if "blu" needs a place for what it's bluer than, than > "sel" needs a place for who the seller is more of a seller than. > >> I ask because a Ceqli >> 'opposite' is mainly going to be equivalent to 'berX', or maybe 'cerX' if >> it's a handier word. And if Ceqli 'cnel' means 'is faster than' > > No. There should be no more than four root words that are comparatives, and > those should be "more", "less", "most", and "least". Not "is faster > than"; that would be the compound fast+more. > >> When everybody gets around to explaining modals to me, they might work the >> same way. > > Modals are described in > http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter9.html, > section 5. It explains them rather well, starting with "fi'o > <predicate>" (which would become "ho <predicate>" in Ceqli) before going > on to the condensed forms that Lojban has. Okay, I think I've got it. > >> That is, >> ploj = x1 uses x2 to do x3 >> berploj = x2 is used by x1 to do x3 >> and reverse that to >> pjol so to pjol is 'tool', and maybe 'ho pjol' is the instrumental >> preposition. > > Sorry, but can I come out and say how repulsive I find this idea? Not > only does it confuse reversing the places with taking the opposite - > concepts which might both apply in many cases - but it makes the > reversed-places version of a word an entirely different word, which was > a prevalent misfeature of Loglan before the affix system came about. Okay. I was thinking that reversal should have some kind of relationship to place structure. I think you're right that it should be more systematic than I described above. But I do want it to be a sort of mnemonic rather than a rule to be applied. And I'm not at all sure how rigidly defined 'opposite' ought to be, either logically or for this one purpose. Would you regard give and receive as opposites? If so: Go don da zi. I give it to you. = Zi be don da go. You receive it from me. = Zi berdan da go. = Zi dno da go. (Not really suggesting this particular word. We'd pick anothrr that would reverse better). This is what I meant by reversal sometimes equaling be, sometimes ce, etc. Does it sound any better this way? -- >PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email > Rex F. May (Baloo) > Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp > Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm > Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm >Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/