[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> 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
I don't see, though, how we get from these Loglan cmavo, assuming that
they are accurately glossed, to the Woldyan picture.
Specifically, what is unexplained is how we get so'e/so'i/so'u meaning
not "most"/"many"/"few" but an approximate fraction (grades on a 5
degree scale).
Based just on what you report, I don't see why JCB is blamed.
> 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
So you're saying that in Loglan the cmavo had these 'approximate
fraction' meanings, and JCB was responsible for the misleading keywords?
How do we know that the Loglan cmavo didn't mean what the keywords
indicated that they meant?
Is there any point my checking current Loglan documentation? Supposing
we discovered that you misunderstood the Loglan cmavo: would that mean
that the so'V would no longer be bound by your misunderstanding?
Probably not.
--And.