History: Notes Towards a Lojban Literary Criticism

Source of version: 1 (current)

There are various attitudes towards what is the proper Lojbanic style, ''((lobykai))'', & i have taken the liberty of giving them names, e.g. **''((long tanru|lesi'o banli tanru))'' --the style of using multiple ''((tanru))''; **''((the opposite|le si'o sumymulbri))'' --the style of using ''bridi'' with multiple ''((sumti))''; **''((a Lojbanic style based on this|lesi'o sumykuntybri))'' --the style of using ''bridi'' without many ''((sumti))'' or ''((cmavo))''. (The ''beau ideal'' of this style being ''lo ji'ivomei jufra'', or "the four-word sentence"...); **''((the philosophy|kausku ja stecysku))'' --the styles, respectively, of using general ''((gismu))'' or, alternately, ''((lujvo))'' shaped for more precise expression. ** Using no attitudinals at all vs. using them even as bridi-substitutes ** ''le si'o certu pacna'', the habit of scrambling places with SE and dropping every possible elidable. (''ranxi .uinairu'ero'a'' '''.i ma ranxi''') ---- ''Is this really Lit Crit? I think of that as being more conceptual and less stylistic. --xod'' (For right now, this is all we are able to talk about--nothing written so far has raised the deeper questions that literary criticism in more advanced cultures nowadays is concerned with.) ---- pe'i lobykai style is to be found at the two extremes of a continuum. The one extreme exploits to the maximum Lojban's powers of ellipticality. The other extreme is maximally logically explicit and leaves as little as possible to glorking. I hold these two extremes to be the most lobykai, because Lojban more than other languages makes them possible. --((And))