[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: [jboske] lo'e gadri: can we converge towards a resolution?



Nick:
> >On the officializing of additional gadri, I am now thinking
> >that it might be too much to ask of the BF. By my reckoning
> >there are 25 gadri, of which 11 are official. The 25
> >comprise pa'ei plus a 6 * 4 grid with lo'i, lau'i, le'i, la'i
> >on one axis and on the other:
> >set
> >quantified (le, lo, la, lau'a)
> >massified
> >collectivized
> >average
> >unique
> 
> >Since I don't hold out much hope for the BF officializing
> >14 new gadri, I don't see why I should care whether just
> >one or two more gadri are officialized 
> 
> And, you have a blind spot. Allow me to lift it 
> 
> la'e le broda
> la'e lo broda
> la'e la broda
> lu'o lo'i broda
> lu'o le'i broda
> lu'o la'i broda
> 
> I don't need to go on, do I? If you've got these distinct features 
> lying around, make a cmavo just for that feature. 

I'm well aware that those 24 gadri could be reduced to just 4,
lo-, le-, la-, lau'-, and then combined with 5 or 6 LAhE (though
some novel LAhE would be required).

But the current Lojban gadri don't follow that principle. Each
gadri is classified by two parameters, not just the one.

Furthermore, I don't think the official gadri are more useful than
the unofficial ones, so it would seem arbitrary to use LAhE LE
to fill in the gaps in the official paradigm.

I did wonder, though, whether to consider doing all gadri by
LAhE LE. It'd make for more verbosity, but without bias to
officialness.

BTW, I don't know if you meant anything by "*la'e* le broda".
That doesn't seem to have a meaning relevant to our discussion.

> And LAhE will give you singularisation for free 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

--And.