History: tanru versus lujvo rant

Source of version: 1 (current)

Why do people use some ''tanru'' as if they were ''lujvo''? ''tanru'' are vague, ''lujvo'' are specific. *Because, like it or not, some tanru have gained their own meanings. Also, many consider ((long tanru)) significantly more ((lobykai)) than lujvo. ''((sumti tcita))'' could mean any kind of ''tcita'' of a ''((sumti))''--for example, the ''gadri'' can be described as a ''sumti tcita''. If you mean specifically the things that correspond to English prepositions, and you want to be unambiguous, you should say ''sumtcita''. * Do you really want everyone to have to memorize ''every single rafsi'' (.uecai.ienai.ianai.a'onaisai)?!?! ** Of course I do--they're part of the language. I'm doing it myself right now. ''mi'e ((jezrax))'' **You don't need to memorize every single rafsi for production (for comprehension, you have to learn whatever it is that other people use). You can always use the long rafsi when you aren't sure about the short ones. sumtytcita is a lujvo and is considered the same word as sumtcita. It does not have the full range of possible meanings of sumti tcita --((Bob LeChevalier)) Not that vagueness is always bad, but part of the Lojban idea is to support precision. Take advantage of precision when you should. ''mi'e ((jezrax))'' ''Yes, you should learn all the rafsi. They are part of the language! If you want to learn "all" of Lojban, you'll learn all the rafsi. If you don't want to, then don't. I find the attitude that learning all rafsi is unfair, quite ridiculous. And you would never consider making such a complaint about German, would you? And yes, jezrax, "sumtcita" is certainly preferable to sumti tcita. --xod'' ku'i lu sumtcita li'u na ka cusku zmadu le ka smuni .i lu sumtcita li'u simlu le ka mintu smuni le na morji be le rafsi. ''je'enai .i mi xenru .i mi'e xod''