[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 09:31 PM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >John and Jordan disagree about what {ro} should mean, not about which
> >philosophy determines their truths. Can we have metalinguistic statements
> >that tell us which set of word--meaning correspondences we are using
> >-- which dictionary the hearer should consult?
>
> Why not?
>
> >If so, I suggest a
> >cmavo in COI, "COI brod", where "brod" names the dictionary. But then
> >people will want the official dictionary to list only one meaning, and
> >John and Jordan will disagree about which should be listed for ro
>
> Approach 1
> There is only one meaning for ro, with existential import being a
> manifestation of the (whatever branch of philosophy applies - metaphysics,
> ontology, semantics, etc.).
lojban lexicography is the relevant branch
> The dictionary would thus say that ro has
> existential import in an X context, doesn't have existential import in a Y
> context, and existential import implies Z in terms of added meanings. X
> and Y are markable; the default is not specified (and as with tense, optional)
>
> Approach 2
> Split into two words.
I & others had suggested {ro} and {rosu'o}.
> The one that gets ro is the one that is most likely
> to see usage. If this cannot be decided based on intuition, there may
> actually have been enough usage of a word as common as "ro" for usage to
> give an indication
It would be quite hard to prove from usage, I think. But I can have
a bit of schadenfreude at seeing people try to!
--And.