From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue May 4 11:44:13 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 4 May 1993 17:28:16 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8809; Tue, 04 May 93 17:27:37 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6986; Tue, 04 May 93 16:22:53 EST Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 15:44:13 EDT Reply-To: bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: Lojban list Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was bob@GRACKLE.STOCKBRIDGE.MA.US From: bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU Subject: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: John Cowan's message of Fri, 26 Mar 1993 11:30:39 -0500 <9303261803.AA13402@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Message-ID: > > The Nick/Lojbab experimental cmavo "xo'e", which eradicates a place This pops up for me when I want to say something universal, but where the natural gismu seems to want an agent: "Living things are made from cells [by whom?]", ... English gets away with a passive here, because the passive in English does not commit you to the existence of an agent... English does commit you. A fair portion of English speakers to do think that the passive in English commits you to the existence of an agent. There is a semantic ambiguity in the meaning of the word. Some people use `is made from' to mean `is composed of' others use it to mean `is made by an entity'. Speakers who use the first meaning often do not realize that others are using the latter meaning until they find that the local school committee is telling teachers to stop teaching that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. The `is made by an entity' meaning of the word, combined with a presumption that things have unchangable essences, leads to an inescapable conclusion that bacteria cannot become resistant to antibiotics. (I am alert to this issue because bacteria can, in fact, become resistant to antibiotics. My father had an operation in which antibiotics were used. After their usual competitors were killed off, some otherwise not very dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacteria reproduced rapidly and cost my father a testicle.) The Lojban has less semantic ambiguity than the English: zo'e zbacu lo tricu lo selci unspecified makes a tree out of cells lo tricu se zbasu fi lo selci a tree is-made out-of cells zbasu zba make assemble build x1 makes/assembles/builds x2 out of x3 tricu ric tree tree of species... selci sec unit of (cell) cell of...; a whole, basic subunit Both sentences clearly imply a maker even if unspecified. A bridi is a relationship among all the places, even those unspecified because unimportant or obvious. If talking about trees, I would use the following gismu: vasru vas vau contain vessel x1 contains x2; x1 is a vessel containing x2 pagbu pag pau part component-of x1 is a part of x2 (where x2 is the whole) spisa pis spi piece chunk lump portion p x1 is a piece/portion/lump/chunk/particle of x2 For example: lo tricu cu vasru lo selci a tree contains cells or better yet: lo tricu se pagbu lo selci a tree has components cells As for the experimental cmavo "xo'e" that started this discussion. What power! To eradicate a place means to change a meaning accepted by a community. Often, new ideas come from thinking something differently. Use of "xo'e" will, I expect, be shocking to listeners. Its use is a declaration by the speaker that the community's normal understanding is wrong, if not in general, then in the context in which the speaker uses "xo'e". Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Rattlesnake Mountain Road (413) 298-4725 Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA