Talk:The Case Against LA

From Lojban
Revision as of 09:49, 26 January 2015 by Gleki (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Posted by Anonymous on Thu 09 of Nov., 2006 20:33 GMT Very well argued. I only wanted to comment on something not directly related to the proposal: > (Now, this also leads...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 09 of Nov., 2006 20:33 GMT Very well argued.

I only wanted to comment on something not directly related to the proposal:

> (Now, this also leads one to consider the possibility of not requiring > la before the name in the first place, since it isn't required to detect > the start of the name anymore. Such a proposal would be worth > considering, but it does raise some other issues, and it's not what > we're talking about now.)

I would oppose that, because I think CMEVLA should be merged with BRIVLA, not with KOhA or such. Doing the merge with BRIVLA would bring many benefits, like the possibility of talking about {la .atlantik. braxamsi} or {la .kongos. rirxe} which is one of the difficulties currently found with names for the Lojban Wikipedia articles.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

The Case Against LA

clsn Posted by clsn on Fri 10 of Nov., 2006 02:33 GMT posts: 84 Jorge Llambas wrote:

> Very well argued. Thank you. > I only wanted to comment on something not directly related to the > proposal: > >> (Now, this also leads one to consider the possibility of not requiring >> la before the name in the first place, since it isn't required to detect >> the start of the name anymore. Such a proposal would be worth >> considering, but it does raise some other issues, and it's not what >> we're talking about now.) > > I would oppose that, because I think CMEVLA should be merged > with BRIVLA, not with KOhA or such. Doing the merge with BRIVLA > would bring many benefits, like the possibility of talking about > {la .atlantik. braxamsi} or {la .kongos. rirxe} which is one of the > difficulties currently found with names for the Lojban Wikipedia > articles. I don't think it's such a good idea either. Maybe if we had started out that way all along, or if we didn't have multiword cmene. But it's something that comes up.

I probably don't agree with your CMEVLA/BRIVLA merge either, very possibly out of knee-jerk reaction to its seeming radicalness. OTOH, I have been thinking of (and need to propose) a much-needed new cmavo in LAhE that converts a sumti to a name. It would help in handling all kinds of difficulties we're currently having with certain odd name-forms (examples aren't occurring to me ATM, but I had a bunch).

~mark