[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
"maikxlx" <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (For example, in Lojban "I try to run" gets rendered as "I am a
> runner-type-of tryer", where a word meaning "runner" modifies a word
> meaning "tryer"; i.e. syntactically, "runner" is used as the vague,
> general purpose modifier in an unqualified tanru.
>
Even Katanda does allow vague, "sloppy" compounds simply because, as an
MTIL, it has to be able to emulate natural language. For example in
nango te gecavu = "house boat"
(literally: a boat that has an unspecified relationship with
houses)
it's not clear if the boat looks like a house, is used as a house, or
has some other relationship with a house. If the speaker wants to be
specific, though, he can. For example, "nango cavunto" refers
specifically to a boat that IS also a house.
However, I don't consider "house boat" to be ambiguous - I consider it
to be vague. When we use compounds like it, it is either our intent to
be vague or we simply assume that the listener will figure out the
correct meaning.
I guess it all comes down to where we draw the line between ambiguity
and vagueness.
Regards,
Rick Morneau
http://www.srv.net/~ram
http://www.eskimo.com/~ram