From jwodder@sdf.lonestar.org Fri Dec 18 14:09:38 2009 Received: from ol.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.20] helo=sdf.lonestar.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLl0w-0005dA-DG for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:09:38 -0800 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:jwodder@ukato.freeshell.org [192.94.73.7]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBIM9TW0009005 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:09:29 GMT Received: (from jwodder@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.3/8.12.8/Submit) id nBIM9TPA006044 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:09:29 GMT Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:09:29 +0000 From: Minimiscience To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: A question about gismu definitions Message-ID: <20091218220927.GA23397@sdf.lonestar.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org References: <200912172230.29053.phma@phma.optus.nu> <5a3750120912180545p64d95c2cm969572cf42c406c9@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) de'i li 18 pi'e 12 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Christopher Doty .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > I was just looking though the jbovlaste, and it looks like definitions > get proposed and voted on by the community? Maybe this is why the > definitions seem a bit weird to me... I had previously thought that, > as with the grammar and gismu themselves, they were a sort of > pre-defined set and not so flexible. Am I understanding this process > right? Namely, that I should be flexible in understanding the > definitions because they come from different people, and aren't writ > in stone? .skamyxatra Jbovlaste only lets people submit & vote on definitions for {lujvo} and {fu'ivla} (and {cmene}, I guess, but I don't know whether there are any in Jbovlaste or not). NO ONE is allowed to touch the {gismu} definitions (not even blatantly wrong bits like the keyword of "{jegvo}"), and only the BPFK may deal with the {cmavo} definitions, which they are still working on, and they will not be changed in Jbovlaste until they're finished. The official (i.e., English-language) {gismu} & {cmavo} definitions were written by a committee years ago and are kept frozen in order to preserve the stability of the language. > Which brings me to another question: > > cpina - x1 is pungent/piquant/peppery/spicy/irritating to sense x2 > > It seems odd to me to have "irritating" in this definition, since it > presumes that something spicy or peppery is bad. Wouldn't this sort > of opinion about good or bad be better done with attitudinals? I believe that the primary connotation of "{cpina}" is "pungent" (that being the keyword and the first definition, after all), and hence the focus is on things that overwhelm the senses with a sharp sensation. Peppery & spicy things are typical examples of "{cpina}," and an overwhelming sensation is often irritating, hence the reference to both concepts. Keep in mind that the {gismu} always represent broad, general concepts; specifics are left to {lujvo} and {fu'ivla}. > .ii le cidja cpina > 'Yikes, the food is spicy!' > > .ui le cidja cpina > 'Yay, the food is spicy!' > > With irritating in this definition, the last one seems to be more like > "I'm happy that this food is irritating," which seems an odd thing to > say.. > > Am I missing something here? Yes, you're missing a "{cu}" in front of the "{cpina}." mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. -- ko kutygau le do skami jbipru bo vreji