From phma@phma.optus.nu Thu Dec 17 19:31:03 2009 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLTYP-0003rN-SK for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:31:02 -0800 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=GdIDzSyDFikA:10 a=8xMh0ScnLw5sEOsxNhkA:9 a=N5q_fEwWd0Ixp9mvbIIA:7 a=GNP920QW90RoQYhc0DPPOIAPDAwA:4 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 71.71.198.100 Received: from [71.71.198.100] ([71.71.198.100:42914] helo=chausie) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id 60/7D-04641-867FA2B4; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:30:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24A2EC92 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:30:47 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] A question about gismu definitions Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:30:24 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200912172230.29053.phma@phma.optus.nu> On Thursday 17 December 2009 21:10:40 Christopher Doty wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm new to Lojban, but think it's very cool. I'm a PhD student in > linguistics, and it's quite fun to think about how different (and > similar) Lojban is from natural languages. > > As I'm starting to learn gismu, though, I have a couple of question > about definitions. Consider the set of gismu below, along with their > definitions: > > remna - x1 is a human/human being/man (non-specific gender-free > sense); (adjective:) x1 is human > prenu - x1 is a person/people (noun) [not necessarily human]; x1 > displays personality/a persona > remsmi - r1 is humanoid/man-like in quality r2 "r2" should be "s3". I just fixed it. r2 would be the species of human, if= =20 there were such a place, which there should be, as paleontologists talk abo= ut=20 several species of human. > remsmismani - x1 is an ape of species x2. > ninmu - x1 is a woman/women; x1 is a female humanoid person [not > necessarily adult] > nanmu - x1 is a man/men; x1 is a male humanoid person [not necessarily > adult] > > My first question is, essentially, this: what are criteria for using > these various forms? Is remsmi not to be used with human beings, but > only non-human things which have some resemblance to human beings? > (And what is "man" doing in there? Is that the "non-gender specific" > man as in remna?) When can you use prenu with non-humans? When > they're sentient aliens or computers? Can you use this for apes as > well, even though a separate set of terms exists for apes? remsmi is, being derived from remna, like a non-gender-specific man. And of= =20 course you can use "remsmi" for apes, as "remsmismani" is derived=20 from "remsmi". lo tcimpazi cu remsmi lo ka pensi. Many languages have distinct words for "man" in the male sense, "man" in th= e=20 non-gender-specific sense, and "woman". For instance: Latin: vir, homo, mulier Irish: fear, duine, bean Greek: =CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=B7=CF=81, =CE=B1=CE=BD=CE=B8=CF=81=CF=89=CF=80=CE=BF= =CF=82, =CE=B3=CF=85=CE=BD=CE=B7 English used to have "wer" (cognate to "vir" and "fear"), but that's now us= ed=20 only in "werewolf" and the like. > I suppose that my issue with this is that I'm not clear how we're > defining 'person/people' and 'humanoid' here. Does personhood imply > sentience? Or only that something is alive? Or is something like > ninmu only used with things which are demonstrably both physically and > mentally similar to human beings? > > Perhaps I'm overthinking this a bit in an effort to be truly > "logical." It seems like including these bits in the definition are > intended to cover things like characters/computer game avatars/etc., > as well as possibly future non-human intelligences, but it seems a bit > messy at the moment (perhaps because all such non-human entities are > currently fictional/hypothetical). I think you're right. Btw, "remsmi" and "remsmismani" are lujvo, not gismu. All lujvo, fu'ivla, a= nd=20 gismu are brivla. Syntactically there is no difference, but morphologically= ,=20 a gismu is one morpheme, a lujvo is at least two, and a type-3 fu'ivla coul= d=20 be considered two morphemes, one of which is an unikales Morphem. > Relatedly, I'm wondering about the definitions of some gismu, like > dunda below, that list multiple English words in the definition. > > dunda - x1 [donor] gives/donates gift/present x2 to > recipient/beneficiary x3 [without payment/exchange]. > > Am I correct in assuming that this is an effort to provide a sense of > the concepts that the gismu covers, and not simply a list of English > equivalents? That is, can we use dunda in ANY place where a transfer > of an object takes place without recompense (e.g., bequeath, transmit > (as knowledge across generations), will, etc.), or ONLY in cases where > English specifically uses "donate" or "give?" "dunda" can be used in any such situation. It is very general, as gismu in= =20 general are. You can make up words like "cedydu'a" or "seljundu'a" for more= =20 specific kinds of giving, or "gincerda" for inheriting genes, etc. Pierre =2D-=20 li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci