From yoav.nir@gmail.com Wed Dec 23 14:17:24 2009 Received: from mail-bw0-f215.google.com ([209.85.218.215]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NNZWC-0008Sc-8E for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:24 -0800 Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so5517859bwz.26 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=B5C8qaLxkwE0uRY+pw37tyNKRrItL9FyLxm62/q4MA0=; b=LHxb0jvD3hTghnYWtXU8NMo/yKmA3+1xuNaPhlOJDSIhH11qZa9v7SGiCIeKtNxeAW e4tsKVum40KKEUjU91ZQKC6O6uN044dxWEqbFANbUxjd/1JHa3WBF4j+vDWquLOxivp0 7C3jtStwsGb8GMk5Md4TmR6IWuMmHtVKFZjAg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=oxnHs4CKYUQRBBvt94KWDd2+ZL4fgXZTskfIWYaQa9KFrrBRb5dzhwhs4h4/txT4VS iLgjJ223+UNiTTZGv6e/I/wUadps7kmDbRBL3NseTMdK/0mebsY0W6FzDMteCG4K/mJS 6IMoq5MlOVBySUkbtLE6yRPQZ1lcgEpfb06ko= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.2.211 with SMTP id 19mr1488937bkk.6.1261606633167; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <200912172230.29053.phma@phma.optus.nu> <5a3750120912180545p64d95c2cm969572cf42c406c9@mail.gmail.com> <702226df0912181406u4f338dacuc47f8c6d4c6542d1@mail.gmail.com> <20091218221314.GB1650@alice.local> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:17:13 +0200 Message-ID: <71550650912231417k5e2e2849x6c14f0eff66d64ae@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: A question about gismu definitions From: Yoav Nir To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd1d6ea375be8047b6caf07 --000e0cd1d6ea375be8047b6caf07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 FWIW you see a lot more "prenu" than "remna". "remna" is used specifically to denote humans. There is no specific requirement for "prenu" to be human or sentient. If you're one of those who say "cats are people too" then you could use "prenu" for a cat. Suppose you wanted to use legal language. Almost all systems of law have a definition of "person" which is someone that can own property, or has the capacity to sue or be sued. Such "legal person" can be any human, but also a corporation. To construct a lujvo for this, I think we would use "prenu" rather than "remna" - humanity in the biological sense does not matter. flapre?? On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Christopher Doty wrote: > Hrm... Okay, I guess this is the same issue I was having with > person--namely, it's not clear what definition of the English word the > gismu has. > > Is it best to assume, then, that gismu are essentially free of any > connotations about desirability or undesirability (unless the gismu is > actually about such a thing, of course)? So any of the connotations > about the desirability or lack thereof would best be accomplished with > attitudinals as I did before (+ cu)? > > Chris > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 14:13, Alan Post > wrote: > > Irritating could be a description of the effect that spicy food has > > in your mouth, which could rightly be described as irritating, even > > when the endorphins generated make that something you desire. > > > > Something being an irritant, in a chemical sense, doesn't imply a > > value judgement about desirability. > > > > -Alan > > > > --000e0cd1d6ea375be8047b6caf07 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FWIW you see a lot more "prenu" than "remna= ".

"remna" is used specifically to denote= humans. There is no specific requirement for "prenu" to be human= or sentient. If you're one of those who say "cats are people too&= quot; then you could use "prenu" for a cat.

Suppose you wanted to use legal language. Almost all sy= stems of law have a definition of "person" which is someone that = can own property, or has the capacity to sue or be sued. Such "legal p= erson" can be any human, but also a corporation. To construct a lujvo = for this, I think we would use "prenu" rather than "remna&qu= ot; - humanity in the biological sense does not matter.

flapre??

On Sat, Dec = 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
Hrm... Okay, I guess this is the same issue I was having with
person--namely, it's not clear what definition of the English word the<= br> gismu has.

Is it best to assume, then, that gismu are essentially free of any
connotations about desirability or undesirability (unless the gismu is
actually about such a thing, of course)? =A0So any of the connotations
about the desirability or lack thereof would best be accomplished with
attitudinals as I did before (+ cu)?

Chris

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 14:13, Alan Post <alanpost@sunflowerriver.org> wrote:
> Irritating could be a description of the effect that spicy food has > in your mouth, which could rightly be described as irritating, even > when the endorphins generated make that something you desire.
>
> Something being an irritant, in a chemical sense, doesn't imply a<= br> > value judgement about desirability.
>
> -Alan




--000e0cd1d6ea375be8047b6caf07--