From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Thu Sep 5 10:34:20 1991 Return-Path: Date: Thu Sep 5 10:34:20 1991 Message-Id: <9109051343.AA01220@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: Lojban list Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: I few quickies X-To: LOJBAN%CUVMA.BITNET@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann , Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu's message of Wed, 4 Sep 1991 16:43:24 -0700 Status: RO Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 16:43:24 -0700 From: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-To: Lojban list > First off, have we got a good way to say "light" (not in weight)? I've been using se gusni (light x1 illuminates target x2 (converted) source x3). I hate that. You really need a thesaurus to get through the gismu list. > Also, the gismu {fendi} is defined as "divide/partition...into...by > method...." Here, we run into the ambiguity of using English as the > metalanguage: If I pour water into two sides of a vessel separated by a > barrier, am *I* the one who "divides" the water into two parts, or is it > the partition? In Old Loglan the policy was that [most] words were non-transitive, and to get transitive meanings you were supposed to make a lujvo. In today's vocabulary, zukte (x1 does x2 purpose x3) or rinka (x1 causes x2 condition x3) are suitable main words for the lujvo, depending on the meaning. Example: fedyzu'e - fendu zukte - image of a person forcing himself into a crowd to split it into parts. I'm not positive I follow all this, or the ensuing discussion. It's particularly difficult since even deciding for or against transitivity doesn't help. F'rinstance: let's say we decide that {le fendi} is the partition between {le te fendi}, not the actor who did the dividing. This is a reasonable definition, since getting to the partition from the actor would be tough. Now, what might we say to {fendr'ia} == fendi rinka? Using Nick's usual reading of {-ri'a} to transitivize a predicate, a la Esperanto "-ig", we get "divide-cause." Now. If I divide water on two sides of a partition, have I "divide-cause"d the water, or the partition? I caused one to be divided, and one to divide. Would the former be {selfendri'a} and the latter {fendri'a}? Hmmm. Actually, that sounds pretty good. Oh, well. I'll probably post the first part of the translation I needed this for today, so you can all work on it in context. ~mark