Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of so.cool.ogi@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::236;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Problems with gismu
References: <3f955e44-a4ca-4c9c-ba07-ed82f6dcd1d8@googlegroups.com> <20131217120048.3e494cd3@aol.com>
From: Sebastian <so.cool.ogi@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131217120048.3e494cd3@aol.com>
Message-Id: <5367432C-14BA-4AB7-A9B6-C668BF81B075@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:59:12 +0100
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (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: /

coi
Logic is about syntax, not semantics, and lojban is a logical language with=
 root words based on common concepts found in natlangs. I think that's nice=
, so you can translate quite easy between lojban and other languages.

Thank you Wuzzy for a nice explanation about the very point of having gismu=
.=20
Gismu are vague for a good reason. I almost always interpret gismu as somet=
hing close to their natlang counterpart as they stand in the definition, bu=
t in as broad sense as plausible. So for me that's not wrong to use for exa=
mple "kalri" to mean access to a shop/internet account/possible world or wh=
atever, or to use "jersi" to mean "following". That's pretty much how we us=
e words like "open" in natlang anyway.
I don't like when jbopre interpret the gismu definitions in a strict, liter=
al sense (and I think many do), since that makes them want a lot more gismu=
s (or a million ba'u of odd fu'ivla-4), which is really unnecessary. That i=
s why we have lujvo, to be more specific.

But for some concepts I really lack a corresponding gismu. Why for example =
isn't there a gismu for gender. That's a word a lot of academic persons use=
 daily, something you can find in every passport etc You have the set "mamt=
a, patfu, rirni", in analogy with "nanmu, ninmu, ..." (gende?).=20
Whatever "man" or "woman" or gender really means, those are common interrel=
ated concepts. Lujvo-solution is too lengthy for such a common concept, fu'=
ivla-solution not so compatible with lujvo constructions (and if you're a f=
eminist student, you really would like to make a lot lujvos based on the ge=
nder-gismu). Maybe "cinse" would be just fine for this, but I've never real=
ly understood what x2 and x3 is supposed to mean.

Gismu place structure could have been designed better from the beginning.
A strange thing, but not so important, is why of all trees in the world cho=
osing one single genus at all (cindu)- really confusing. What is so special=
 with oaks anyway?=20
But as said here in the discussion before, all that isn't really a serious =
problem, and not worth starting all over again constructing a new loglang.=
=20

Another gismu I would like to have: something meaning "noodles" (I really d=
on't like the lujvo forms). I was thinking of "pasta", but that's probably =
too cultural biased. Any ideas?

And bicycle; For me "relxilma'e" could mean any vehicle with two wheels: mo=
torcycle, kickboard, moped, etc. With a gismu for bicycle, you could then c=
onstruct lujvos like "heavy motorcycle" and "bike-similar-vehicle according=
 to the law" (in Sweden that is for example: electric propelled wheelchairs=
).

su - I'm just babbling too much. For the most of the time I like the gismus=
 just as they are.

co'omi'e seb


Skickat fr=E5n min iPhone

> 17 dec 2013 kl. 12:00 skrev Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com>:
>=20
> Am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:22:51 -0800 (PST)
> schrieb lorxus <coronacoreanici@gmail.com>:
>=20
>> 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".
> 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. 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.
>=20
> 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
>=20
> And why does every gismu need an =93agent=94? That=92s highly limiting in=
 my
> opinion. We have =93gasnu=94 (for example) for that. And as I said, ag
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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
>>=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?
>=20
>> (bonus points for whoever
>> decided to make a lujvo for spicy meaning pain-flavored)
> Tell that sarefo. :-)
>=20
>> As for blatantly missing gismu: why (=85)=20
>> 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.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Wuzzy
> XMPP: Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de
> E-Mail: wuzzy2@mail.ru
>=20
> --=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=
 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.