proposing a lujvo

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>Really?  We don't have to reach an explicit
>agreement on the place structure of the lujvo?

My undestanding is that lujvo are metaphors. As such, there is no explicit
designation as to what they mean. Presumably, some lujvo will  come to be
accepted as specific mappings in lojban semantic space, and will become
"words" whose metaphorical ambiguity will be lessened by conventional usage.

>
>Consider:
>
>.i zo solsentrvi'u cu sinxa lenuzo'e vimcu le
>barsenta le solri
>
>Would a sentence like that suffice to establish
>the meaning of {solsentrvi'u}?  What if some
>people prefer a more detailed lujvo such as
>{solbarborsentrvi'u}?  Or what if some people
>prefer a different hyphen, yielding {solsentyvi'u}?

My understanding is that separate lujvo constructs using different rafsi
(combining forms) are semantically equivalent. Of course, the construction
of lujvo is governed by the grammar, and lujvo must be grammatically
correct.

>
>Fact is, I have trouble remembering the rules for
>hyphens.  Does {clamauri'a} work as a lujvo for
>"lengthen"?  Or must I insert an /n/, yielding
>{clamaunri'a}?
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>co'omi'e markl.

The general stuff about lujvo making is at:

http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/lujvomak.html

There is a simpler convention for lujvo construction which is less general,
but easier to use. It was mentioned in a thread about lujvo construction
some time ago, but apparently the search engine for looking at the lojban
list archive is not working at present.

-Steven


Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria