From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Sep 21 09:48:57 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 1992 09:48:56 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6171; Mon, 21 Sep 92 09:47:45 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 2559; Mon, 21 Sep 92 09:47:43 EDT Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 09:46:41 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TECH.QUERY: zo bancu cu mo zo zmadu leka smuni X-To: lojbab@grebyn.com X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Logical Language Group's message of Sat, 19 Sep 92 02:48:08 -0400 <9209190648.AA00573@daily.grebyn.com> Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: >Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 02:48:08 -0400 >From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) >The question between zmadu and bancu is NOT the x3 place, which they share, >but the x4 place that they don't. Yes, I mistyped. I meant the x4 place. > I am not sure that your version of the >statement using zmadu is as clear as the same statement using bancu. The >x4 place that you did not supply may not be meaningful, even if there is >a way to define its value (certainly mathematicians/geometers can tell how >much more distant the tree is from you than the fence. But the essential >claim is that the tree is on the other side of the fence and not that it is >more distant from you than the fence. Hmm. Indeed, the fence might be in a >different direction from you than the tree, and closer to you, and the s >statement involving zmadu would be true, but not the statement involving >bancu. Thus bancu ==> zmadu but not necessarily vice versa. Oh, is that the essential difference that "bancu" gives? That it is necessarily in the same "direction"? That seems pretty specific for a gismu, applicable in spatial relationships and little else. I suspect you can probably do {le tricu cu zmadu le bitmu leni darno mi tu'a le farna be le bitmu bei mi}. OK, that's ugly, but I couldn't find a better way to say "...measured in the distance to the fence from me," and don't tell me there isn't one. >So there are two criteria: relevance of the x4 place to the claim, and this >latter implication distinction, that would seem to differ between the two. You are starting to make sense; the second criterion seems marginally reasonable, though it should certainly be made clear in the gi'uste. Use of "beyond" doesn't really cut it for me. I'm not 100% convinced yet, but it's a start. >As to WHY we have both mleca and zmadu: because people make conceptual >distinctions in each direction. <....> Yes, I've accepted the need for, and the existence of, both {mleca} and {zmadu}. As I said, I was getting carried away there. ~mark