[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 02:13 PM 11/22/02 +0000, And wrote:
In favour of the Woldyan position: * Thus is it Written.
Seconded by lojbab (for what that is worth)
* It is sort-of consistent with the phonological patterning: they all form a so'V series, whose ordering makes sense if you take it to be alphabetical so'a>so'e>so'i>so'o>so'u counting in the opposition direction (big to small) from normal (small to big). This has the virtue of accounting for the apparent antiiconicity of so'i/so'u. (I'd have expected so'u>so'o>so'a>so'e>so'i, myself, though; much less arbitrary than alphabetical ordering.)
To which I plead "JCB". Whenever possible, I matched patterns with whatever JCB had done, considering that consistency with old Loglan was a highest of virtues. In this case so'a>so'e>so'i>so'o>so'u correspond to TLI
ra all/each/every re most/most of ri several/a few of ro many/much of and sa almost all/about.. si at most/at most one of.. su some/some of/at least/at least one of.. which I combined into a single sequence. And+Cowan wrote:
> chosen. Why wasn't {so'u} "almost none", and {so'i} "a middling
> number" or "about half", or suchlike?
*shrug*
I wrote it up the way the Bobster told me to. I am not responsible for his
choice of Logflash keywords.
See the above JCBisms. LogFlash keywords were chosen for brevity/ease of typing, at least as much as for accuracy of meaning. At the time, no one thought that the keywords would serve as the basis for a dictionary.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org