Return-Path: Message-Id: <9109042346.AA12613@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Wed Sep 4 21:07:22 1991 Reply-To: Lojban list Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!MATH.UCLA.EDU!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!jimc Subject: Re: I few quickies X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann , Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 91 09:39:26 EDT." <9109032153.AA21392@julia.math.ucla.edu> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep 4 21:07:22 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN > Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1991 09:39:26 EDT > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" > Subject: I few quickies > 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've been using {carmi}. Is that right? carmi is "x1 is intense in property x2 to perceiver x3". I think you have to say selgu'icai - se gusni carmi - intensely lighted. carmi's keyword "bright" confuses. > 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 agree with you that the places of fendi don't want to stay nailed down. See also fatri - x1 distributes/allots x2 among x3. (A word for "share", possibly a converted new place of fatri, would be helpful.) See also korbi - x1 is the edge of x2 next to x3. fendi and fatri are defined transitively such that when you put forward these relations, an actor doing the distributing / dividing is always included even if not specified by words. But some meanings lack an actor in an essential way, e.g. "Each person should take his proper share", share being defined by rules not actors. Or, "omnis gallia in partes tres divisa est", not by Caesar but because that's just the way it is. It's easier to add an actor through a lujvo, tanru or BAI phrase, than it is to get rid of one from a transitive definition. -- jimc