From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Apr 3 00:22:08 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 30 Mar 1993 05:32:25 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1077; Tue, 30 Mar 93 05:31:05 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5529; Tue, 30 Mar 93 05:32:30 EST Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 14:22:08 +1000 Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: TECH: grammar updates X-To: cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: from "John Cowan" at Mar 29, 93 01:05:28 pm Status: OR Message-ID: The Seraphim surely rejoiced when John Cowan spoke thus: }la kolin. cusku di'e }> This is dangerous, because it lets malglico in by the back door. 'zbasu' has }> a maker in its tergismu for good reason. If you don't happen to believe that }> living things have a zbasu in their history, then it is not appropriate to }> use 'zbasu'. The argument that 'ne'e zbasu' is a different selbri reeks of }> sophistry, and looks to me like a way of avoiding thinking about what you }> really mean. Though Colin is right in saying one shouldn't use {zbasu}, it could be argued that we're not using {zbasu} here at all, but rather a selbri related to {zbasu}, but minus its maker place. This all hinges on to what extent a selbri is defined solely by its places: {se zbasu be ne'e}, in such a light, needs have little to do with {zbasu} proper. It's a mess, I know. I mean, if a battery is a {sorcu}, but needs no location, then it could be argued it is not a {sorcu} at all, since it doesn't have a {ve sorcu}. But then what it is? And if it is something different, why doesn't it have its own gismu? And if we admit that not all concepts can be expressed with gismu and cmavo, and that some lujvo (like that of battery) can have their place structure arise ex nihilo... well, I'd worry. It may not be a disaster, but I think we've all been assuming the Gismu Deep Structure Hypothesis, we've all been assuming all lujvo can be paraphrased as tanru can be paraphrased (ta'unai) as gismu deep strcutures; an admission that they can't would greatly change our attitudes to lujvo making. }BTW, I just noticed that an alternative to {ne'e} for this use would be {zi'a}, }{zi'i}, {zi'o}, or {zi'u}, all recently freed with the abolition of ziheks. }These would have the advantage of sharing an initial letter with {zo'e} and }{zu'i}. Comments? Looks OK to me. To avoid confusability, {zi'a} or {zi'o}. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick S. Nicholas, "Rode like foam on the river of pity CogSci & CompSci student, Turned its tide to strength University of Melbourne, Australia. Healed the hole that ripped in living" nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au - Suzanne Vega, Book Of Dreams ______________________________________________________________________________