From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 15 12:46:12 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DMWlQ-0001nD-Fl
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:46:04 -0700
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DMWlQ-0001n6-7X
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:46:04 -0700
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:46:04 -0700
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: X1 is X2 by definition.
Message-ID: <20050415194604.GH13636@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20050415104358.20376.qmail@web31309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20050415184257.GE13636@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d1756050415123866f27f8f@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <925d1756050415123866f27f8f@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 9839
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:38:03PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 4/15/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > Please not that defining gismu in Lojban is Hard, because Lojban
> > tends not to have many words for the same concept, so some
> > concepts must be taken as given, and those are generally the
> > gismu.
> 
> Yes, but also it is hard because talking about definitions and
> meanings in Lojban is hard. It is not even clear how to talk about
> a meaning, as you hint below.
>  
> > My Way:
> > 
> > zo prami se smuni di'e .i xy pi pa ke mutce cinmo nelci xy pi re
> > gi'e djica lo nu di'i kansa xy pi re
> > 
> > Or something like that.  You could put the second half in the x2
> > of se smuni, but it'd be a pain.
> 
> {di'e} is a text, so if you wanted a text there you could have
> used {lu ... li'u}.  But I don't think a text is a meaning. 
> 
> Maybe you meant {la'e di'e}. 

More that, yes.

> Then you could have used {lo du'u ...} or {lo nu ...} (I think
> {la'e di'e} is ambiguous between those two.) But it is not clear
> that the meaning of {prami} could be an event or a fact either.

lo ka, then.

> I think what we want to say is something like:
> 
> {lo ka ce'u xi pa prami ce'u xi re cu mintu lo ka ce'u xi pa mutce
> cinmo nelci ce'u xi re li'o kei lo -definition} "the two-place
> relationship 'x1 loves x2' is the same as the two-place
> relationship 'x1 intensely feels fondness for x2 etc.' by
> definition".

Bah.  Any Lojban word definition that has to say "by definition" has
made an error.

zo prami cu valsi lo ka ce'u xi pa mutce cinmo nelci ce'u xi re

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/