notes Towards a Lojban Literary Criticism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There are various attitudes towards what is the proper Lojbanic style, ''[[jbocre: lobykai|lobykai]]'', & i have taken the liberty of giving them names, e.g. | |||
**''[[jbocre: long tanru esi'o banli tanru|long tanru esi'o banli tanru]]'' --the style of using multiple ''[[jbocre: tanru|tanru]]''; | |||
**''[[jbocre: the opposite e si'o sumymulbri|the opposite e si'o sumymulbri]]'' --the style of using ''bridi'' with multiple ''[[jbocre: sumti|sumti]]''; | |||
**''[[jbocre: a Lojbanic style based on this esi'o sumykuntybri|a Lojbanic style based on this esi'o sumykuntybri]]'' --the style of using ''bridi'' without many ''[[jbocre: sumti|sumti]]'' or ''[[jbocre: cmavo|cmavo]]''. (The ''beau ideal'' of this style being ''lo ji'ivomei jufra'', or "the four-word sentence"...); | |||
**''[[kauske ausku ja stecysku|the philosophy ausku ja stecysku]]'' --the styles, respectively, of using general ''[[jbocre: gismu|gismu]]'' or, alternately, ''[[jbocre: lujvo|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. --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]] | |||
the | |||
Revision as of 17:07, 4 November 2013
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 esi'o banli tanru --the style of using multiple tanru;
- the opposite e si'o sumymulbri --the style of using bridi with multiple sumti;
- a Lojbanic style based on this esi'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 ausku 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 Rosta