Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of almikes@aol.com designates 205.188.109.204 as permitted sender) client-ip=205.188.109.204;
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:00:48 +0100
From: Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Problems with gismu
Message-ID: <20131217120048.3e494cd3@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <3f955e44-a4ca-4c9c-ba07-ed82f6dcd1d8@googlegroups.com>
References: <3f955e44-a4ca-4c9c-ba07-ed82f6dcd1d8@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:22:51 -0800 (PST)
schrieb lorxus <coronacoreanici@gmail.com>:

> coi ro do
>=20
> It seems like for a language that prides itself on regularity, ease
> of learning and use, and logic, Lojban sure has weird and incomplete
> gismu.=20
>=20
> A given gismu can have anywhere from 1 to 5 places of varying types,
> some of them a sign of gismu bloat, and there are even a few
> extremely obvious gismu with clear counterparts are excluded.=20
> My
> proposals: first, make all gismu be exactly 3 places long, with the
> first an agent, the second a patient, and the third a beneficiary -
> loosely. For gismu like {blanu}, we might have "x1 is blue of shade
> x2 to observer x3", or something like that; {zdani} might be "x1 is a
> house for x2 owned by x3".=20
I don=92t like your definition of {zdani} because it makes an owner
mandatory. If there=92s no owner, it=92s not a {zdani} then. The current
=93zdani=94 must not not be neccessarily a house. A =93zdani=94 is a *home*=
 of
someone. It could also be a bird=92s nest. So the idea of ownership makes
no sense here. For a building which is a house, see =93zdadi'u=94. This
also does not include ownership. If you really insist of including
ownership, you could just make another lujvo which includes =93ponse=94.
Briefly, your proposed =93zdani=94 is probably too overly specific.

Your idea of forcing exactly 3 places for all gismu would not work for
quite some concepts.
The idea of requiring all gismu to follow a =93agent, patient,
beneficiary=94 convention does not make any sense to me. There are
relationships which simply don=92t fit into this pattern.
First of all, everything which is slightly more abstract is unlikely to
fit into this pattern. Things like addition, subtraction or the logical
AND. Especially =93dilcu=94, which needs the 4th place for the remainder.
What=92s with =93klama=94? 3 places. Also I can=92t picture an =93agent,
patient, beneficiary=94 relationship for =93klama=94. And, and, and =85
It seems to me that you=92re trying to force a regularity upon concepts=20

And why does every gismu need an =93agent=94? That=92s highly limiting in m=
y
opinion. We have =93gasnu=94 (for example) for that. And as I said, ag

But the biggest problem with your proposal is that its impact would be
extreme.
First of all, most, if not all current Lojban writings would be
invalidated. Also, the regular lujvo which have been coined so far
would be invalidated as well, because the places =85 well =85 they simply
don=92t fit anymore.
Are you really sure you want to do this?

Agreed, the gismu we have are not perfect and could have been better.
Not being perfectly parallel is not nice, right. But nothing of all
this is really *serious*. The gismu still work for me. You have to come
up with some better arguments to convince me that the gismu problem is
indeed so serious that we *have to* start over.

Also you seem to have missed the point of gismu. IIRC, the goal of the
gismu is not to be 100% parallel at all costs, but to simply provide a
base to build new lujvo while *also* being usable on their own. Many
gismu are intentionally vague, which makes it easier to build lujvo
which are more specific. If the gismu would be too specific with their
places, you also would be pretty limited to construct new lujvo. Your
proposal would make many gismu needlessly more specific, not good.

I think the better way to deal with gismu you don=92t like is to not use
them and to create lujvo or fu'ivla instead.

>=20
> Additionally, we would have a few 1-place gismu to collect all the
> gismu bloat - things like "x1 is a standard for x2 (ka?) used by x3",
> "x1 is an epistemology for truths about x2 (du'u) used by x3", or "x1
> is a condition/mitigating factor/modifier on event x2 (nu?) affecting
> x3".
>=20
> As for blatantly missing gismu: why is there no word for salty, but
> words for sweet, bitter, sour, and spicy?

> (bonus points for whoever
> decided to make a lujvo for spicy meaning pain-flavored)
Tell that sarefo. :-)

> As for blatantly missing gismu: why (=85)=20
> Why (=85)
> Why not for otter, or
> carrot, or dolphin, or any passerine bird?=20
Simply because at some point they HAD to stop and it is sheer impossible
to include so many concepts into 1342 words. Especially there are lots
of animals and plants and you simply have to stop at some point there,
too. And not every concept has to be represented in a gismu, that=92s why
there are lujvo and fu'ivla.
Having a small gismu list which does NOT cover everything you can think
of is the point of the gismu list.


--=20
Wuzzy
XMPP: Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de
E-Mail: wuzzy2@mail.ru

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.