You do realize that changing the place structure= s of valsi that do not fit the pattern of their group to fit the pattern an= d thus erase exceptions would make remembering the entire group easier, whi= le adding a new word, of any kind, to the language, makes the language hard= er, yes?

Here's an example:

mamta= =A0 - x1 is a mother of x2; x1 bears/mothers/acts maternally toward x2; [no= t necessarily biological]
patfu=A0=A0=A0=A0 - x1 is a father of x2; x1 b= egets/sires/acts paternal towards x2; [not necessarily biological]
rirni =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 - x1 is a parent of/raises/rears x2; x1 mentors/acts = parental toward child/protege x2
famti=A0=A0=A0=A0 - x1 is an aunt/uncle= of x2 by bond/tie x3; x1 is an associated member of x2's parent's = generation
panzi =A0=A0 - x1 is a [biological] offspring/child/kid/hybrid of parent(s)= x2; (adjective:) x1 is filial
tixnu =A0=A0=A0 - x1 is a daughter of mother/father/parents x2; [not necess= arily biological]
bersa =A0=A0 - x1 is a son of mother/father/parents x2 [not necessarily bio= logical]
bruna =A0=A0 - x1 is brother of/fraternal to x2 by bond/tie/standard/parent= (s) x3; [not necess. biological]
mensi=A0=A0 - x1 is a sister of/sororal= to x2 by bond/tie/standard/parent(s) x3; [not necessarily biological]
<= br> Notice how all of those are familial relationships, but some have a "b= y bond" x3 place, and some don't? This is what we call an exceptio= n. To make things doubly irritating, all of these words contain the informa= tion that the relationship is not necessarily biological, /including/ the o= nes that don't give you a place to say what kind of relationship it is!=

Do you really want to have to remember which ones have the "by bon= d" x3 and which don't? If they /all/ did, then the place structure= of the entire group would be "x1 is <familial relationship> of = x2 by bond x3", and all you'd need to remember for that individual= valsi is which <familial relationship> that valsi is, and additional= ly would enable a person to say "I have an adopted son." without = accidentally placing the bond "adopted" into the non-existent x3 = place that /ought/ to be there, or resorting to using BAI to make it have t= hat place tag.

In short, there are /NO/ harmful effects to regulating the place struct= ure's of similar words. For example, if all measurement valsi had the e= xact same place structure, differing only in the thing being measured, then= that means for all of those valsi we would only need to remember one place= structure.

Exceptions crop up in every language, and they are /always/ /bad/.
<= br>On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:32 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.= com> wrote:

Please don't change anything in gismu de= finitions!
We may ignore some sumti place, use sumtcita for "by bond..." etc= .
but don't change the existing rules.
In extreme cases let's just create new gismu in favor of elder ones
but this
would be something extraordinal.

The only thing I can accept in the nearest future is from Lojbanic
born
children (doi .robin. .a'o ta baza zasti vau .u'i)

On May 9, 4:25=A0pm, ianek <jane...= @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 2:12:55 PM UTC+2, xorxes wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jonathan Jones =A0wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas =A0wrote: >
> > >> son-in-law would usually be tixspe ("nakni pazyspe&= quot;, "male
> > >> offspring-spouse") would be a more exact translatio= n, which is not
> > >> necessarily better.
>
> > > You know, I really, really dislike the use of a word meaning= female to
> > > describe a male (and vice-versa),
>
> > Do you dislike "maternal grandfather" and "paterna= l grandmother" too?
>
> > >and not because it's prejudicial to
> > > homosexual relationships- although that is an excellent addi= tional
> > reason,
> > > imo.
>
> > It's just a different grouping than in English. English "= ;son-in-law"
> > groups the male spouses of the offspring in a single word, whatev= er
> > the sex of the offspring, while Lojban "tixspe" groups = the spouses of
> > the female offspring in one word, whatever the sex of the spouses= .
> > Both words allow for homosexual marriages, just different ones. >
> > > At this point, "pazyspe" seems like the best optio= n to me. I don't
> > honestly
> > > care about the lack of gender specification- we already know= he's a guy.
>
> > Right, that's more general.
>
> > > So, if {ko'a tixspe ko'e} is {ko'a speni lo tixn= u be ko'e}, what is
> > {ko'a
> > > bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u speni lo ri panzi}?
>
> > But why should marrying someone have to make you the son of their=
> > parents? You could even be older than their parents, which makes<= br> > > calling yourself their son sound even more strange. Just because<= br> > > English happens to use the same word for "son" and &quo= t;son-in-law"
> > doesn't mean Lojban should.
>
> > > Also, why is it that all the familial gismu have a "by = bond x3" except
> > bersa
> > > and tixnu? I hate it when I encounter exceptions like that.<= br> >
> > Yes, it's annoying.
>
> So let's change it! I mean, we should gather complaints like that = and make
> new versions of Lojban from time to time (once a couple of years?). >
> If there are annoying things in Lojban and we know how to fix them, th= en we
> should stop complaining and do something! It's our language, there= 's nobody
> to stop us!
>
> I have similar thoughts about jbovlaste, but I'll better start ano= ther
> thread for that.
>
> mu'o mi'e ianek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I think from this point, I'm going to start /pretending/= they do have
> > the
> > > "by bond" x3. So, what's the lujvo for {ko'= ;a bersa ko'e lo nunspe}?
>
> > That would be a stepson, right? Or is it a son-in-law? It depends= on
> > whose marriage we are talking about.
>
> > > doi.xorxes. So, to make sure, spepa'u and spemamta are t= he correct
> > words?
>
> > For "patfu lo speni" and "mamta lo speni". Or= you could use "sperirni"
> > for both if you don't want sex to be involved.
>
> > > Regarding #72: I'm not missing anything, right?
>
> > I don't think "lo se nanca" makes sense there.
>
> > mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.

To post to this group, = send email to lojban-b= eginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.