krtisfranks wrote:
> Why is sorta a joke that cannot be used productively? I think that it
> makes a fine and useful word. It is concise as well. I am not sure I
would
> otherwise express this concept in a convenient manner.


How about milxe or no'e?

Comment #3: Re: Joke?

Curtis W Franks (Mon Jun 9 04:32:22 2014)

durka42 wrote: > How about milxe or no'e? I thought of those words. milxe is sorta duel to mutce, so I would not really consider that word to be adequate. It references a degree of intensity (namely, mild), not so much... whatever "sort of ___" is- I guess I would call it a "state". The meanings of "mild lover" and "sort of lover" may overlap sometimes, but I can perceive a difference between them in general. no'e is possibly better, but still denotes a definitive neutral state (on the scale between opposite-of-lover-hood (whatever that is) and lover-hood proper). sorta seems possibly more "iffy" and unknown/not-adequately-identified. I am not sure that someone on a romantic break is a neutral-lover. Why have a word, joke or otherwise, if it cannot be used productively in the language- at least theoretically?

Comment #4: Re: Joke? Alex Burka (Mon Jun 9 18:50:47 2014) krtisfranks wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > How about milxe or no'e? > > I thought of those words. milxe is sorta duel to mutce, so I would not > really consider that word to be adequate. It references a degree of > intensity (namely, mild), not so much... whatever "sort of ___" is- I > guess I would call it a "state". The meanings of "mild lover" and "sort of > lover" may overlap sometimes, but I can perceive a difference between them > in general. > > no'e is possibly better, but still denotes a definitive neutral state > (on the scale between opposite-of-lover-hood (whatever that is) and > lover-hood proper). sorta seems possibly more "iffy" and > unknown/not-adequately-identified. I am not sure that someone on a > romantic break is a neutral-lover. > > Why have a word, joke or otherwise, if it cannot be used productively in > the language- at least theoretically? I think the fuzziness of sorta is exactly what Lojban strives to avoid. Comment #5: Re: Joke? Curtis W Franks (Tue Jun 10 06:24:53 2014) durka42 wrote: > I think the fuzziness of sorta is exactly what Lojban strives to avoid. On some level, I agree. I think that Lojban aims to express all possible distinctions and shades, which is why its inventory is supplied with the likes of (for example) no'e, milxe, simsa, and sort of sorta. But, on the other hand, sometimes semantic fuzziness is unavoidable because real-life is messy and fuzzy, and sometimes even the speaker does not know how to express (in brief at least) certain qualities and classifications. Or perhaps, the speaker knows how to express them (and/or the fuzziness of the situation), and accurately does so with a 'fuzzy' word. In either case, the expression is enabled in Lojban, including by perhaps sorta. Embrace semantic and identification fuzziness when necessary or possible, express what is needed or desired, and do so in a syntactically unambiguous manner. There is no real conflict there. But this may be a philosophical difference. I think that sorta and its productions can be taken seriously and can be useful. :)