Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20131217120048.3e494cd3@aol.com>
References: <3f955e44-a4ca-4c9c-ba07-ed82f6dcd1d8@googlegroups.com>
	<20131217120048.3e494cd3@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:12:31 +0400
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+hhZ_niBFGRnaJKfduiT1tgfWYayB1iBs8B9z4kerT5FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Problems with gismu
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f502e8a1906bd04edbd326d
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com> wrote:
    > Am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:22:51 -0800 (PST) > schrieb lorxus <coronacoreanici@gmail.com>:
    > > > coi ro do > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > 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". > I don’t like your definition of
    {zdani} because it makes an owner > mandatory. If there’s no owner, it’s
   not a {zdani} then. The current > “zdani” must not not be neccessarily a house.
    A “zdani” is a *home* of > someone. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (gleki.is.my.name[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

--e89a8f502e8a1906bd04edbd326d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com> wrote:

> Am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:22:51 -0800 (PST)
> schrieb lorxus <coronacoreanici@gmail.com>:
>
> > coi ro do
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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".
> 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 *hom=
e* of
> someone.


Yes, zdani =3D se xabju, an inhabited thing or place.

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
>
> And why does every gismu need an =93agent=94? That=92s highly limiting in=
 my
> opinion. We have =93gasnu=94 (for example) for that.


One can always use {gau}, {seva'u} although "beneficiary" sounds too
metaphoric to me and can be talked about in the context of N-paradigm, not
current "rational" Lojbanic system.

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.


No if lorxus creates numerous new gismu with "correct" place structure.


> 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.
>
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > 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)
> > Why (=85)
> > Why not for otter, or
> > carrot, or dolphin, or any passerine bird?
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wuzzy
> XMPP: Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de
> E-Mail: wuzzy2@mail.ru
>
> --
> 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
> email 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.
>

--=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.

--e89a8f502e8a1906bd04edbd326d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Wuzzy <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:almikes@aol.com" target=3D"_blank">almikes@aol.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:22:51 -0800 (PST)<br>
schrieb lorxus &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:coronacoreanici@gmail.com">coronacorea=
nici@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; coi ro do<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It seems like for a language that prides itself on regularity, ease<br=
>
&gt; of learning and use, and logic, Lojban sure has weird and incomplete<b=
r>
&gt; gismu.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; A given gismu can have anywhere from 1 to 5 places of varying types,<b=
r>
&gt; some of them a sign of gismu bloat, and there are even a few<br>
&gt; extremely obvious gismu with clear counterparts are excluded.<br>
&gt; My<br>
&gt; proposals: first, make all gismu be exactly 3 places long, with the<br=
>
&gt; first an agent, the second a patient, and the third a beneficiary -<br=
>
&gt; loosely. For gismu like {blanu}, we might have &quot;x1 is blue of sha=
de<br>
&gt; x2 to observer x3&quot;, or something like that; {zdani} might be &quo=
t;x1 is a<br>
&gt; house for x2 owned by x3&quot;.<br>
</div>I don=92t like your definition of {zdani} because it makes an owner<b=
r>
mandatory. If there=92s no owner, it=92s not a {zdani} then. The current<br=
>
=93zdani=94 must not not be neccessarily a house. A =93zdani=94 is a *home*=
 of<br>
someone.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, zdani =3D se xabju, an inhabi=
ted thing or place.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> It =
could also be a bird=92s nest. So the idea of ownership makes<br>

no sense here. For a building which is a house, see =93zdadi&#39;u=94. This=
<br>
also does not include ownership. If you really insist of including<br>
ownership, you could just make another lujvo which includes =93ponse=94.<br=
>
Briefly, your proposed =93zdani=94 is probably too overly specific.<br>
<br>
Your idea of forcing exactly 3 places for all gismu would not work for<br>
quite some concepts.<br>
The idea of requiring all gismu to follow a =93agent, patient,<br>
beneficiary=94 convention does not make any sense to me. There are<br>
relationships which simply don=92t fit into this pattern.<br>
First of all, everything which is slightly more abstract is unlikely to<br>
fit into this pattern. Things like addition, subtraction or the logical<br>
AND. Especially =93dilcu=94, which needs the 4th place for the remainder.<b=
r>
What=92s with =93klama=94? 3 places. Also I can=92t picture an =93agent,<br=
>
patient, beneficiary=94 relationship for =93klama=94. And, and, and =85<br>
It seems to me that you=92re trying to force a regularity upon concepts<br>
<br>
And why does every gismu need an =93agent=94? That=92s highly limiting in m=
y<br>
opinion. We have =93gasnu=94 (for example) for that.</blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div><br></div><div>One can always use {gau}, {seva&#39;u} although &q=
uot;beneficiary&quot; sounds too metaphoric to me and can be talked about i=
n the context of N-paradigm, not current &quot;rational&quot; Lojbanic syst=
em.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> And as I said, ag<br>
<br>
But the biggest problem with your proposal is that its impact would be<br>
extreme.<br>
First of all, most, if not all current Lojban writings would be<br>
invalidated.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No if lorxus creates numerous =
new gismu with &quot;correct&quot; place structure.</div><div>=A0</div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
 Also, the regular lujvo which have been coined so far<br>
would be invalidated as well, because the places =85 well =85 they simply<b=
r>
don=92t fit anymore.<br>
Are you really sure you want to do this?<br>
<br>
Agreed, the gismu we have are not perfect and could have been better.<br>
Not being perfectly parallel is not nice, right. But nothing of all<br>
this is really *serious*. The gismu still work for me. You have to come<br>
up with some better arguments to convince me that the gismu problem is<br>
indeed so serious that we *have to* start over.<br>
<br>
Also you seem to have missed the point of gismu. IIRC, the goal of the<br>
gismu is not to be 100% parallel at all costs, but to simply provide a<br>
base to build new lujvo while *also* being usable on their own. Many<br>
gismu are intentionally vague, which makes it easier to build lujvo<br>
which are more specific. If the gismu would be too specific with their<br>
places, you also would be pretty limited to construct new lujvo. Your<br>
proposal would make many gismu needlessly more specific, not good.<br>
<br>
I think the better way to deal with gismu you don=92t like is to not use<br=
>
them and to create lujvo or fu&#39;ivla instead.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Additionally, we would have a few 1-place gismu to collect all the<br>
&gt; gismu bloat - things like &quot;x1 is a standard for x2 (ka?) used by =
x3&quot;,<br>
&gt; &quot;x1 is an epistemology for truths about x2 (du&#39;u) used by x3&=
quot;, or &quot;x1<br>
&gt; is a condition/mitigating factor/modifier on event x2 (nu?) affecting<=
br>
&gt; x3&quot;.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; As for blatantly missing gismu: why is there no word for salty, but<br=
>
&gt; words for sweet, bitter, sour, and spicy?<br>
<br>
&gt; (bonus points for whoever<br>
&gt; decided to make a lujvo for spicy meaning pain-flavored)<br>
</div>Tell that sarefo. :-)<br>
<br>
&gt; As for blatantly missing gismu: why (=85)<br>
&gt; Why (=85)<br>
<div class=3D"im">&gt; Why not for otter, or<br>
&gt; carrot, or dolphin, or any passerine bird?<br>
</div>Simply because at some point they HAD to stop and it is sheer impossi=
ble<br>
to include so many concepts into 1342 words. Especially there are lots<br>
of animals and plants and you simply have to stop at some point there,<br>
too. And not every concept has to be represented in a gismu, that=92s why<b=
r>
there are lujvo and fu&#39;ivla.<br>
Having a small gismu list which does NOT cover everything you can think<br>
of is the point of the gismu list.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Wuzzy<br>
XMPP: <a href=3D"mailto:Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de">Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de</a><br>
E-Mail: <a href=3D"mailto:wuzzy2@mail.ru">wuzzy2@mail.ru</a><br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+uns=
ubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--e89a8f502e8a1906bd04edbd326d--