Message-Id: From: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan) Subject: Re: gismu list proposals, responses To: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 10:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Cc: nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (nick nicholas) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 > jalra: for "cockroach" read "cockroach/termite" > jalra: rationale: such are the facts; surprise! > > I checked, and not really [...] [text omitted] > I made a change to include all of the above in jalra, but > wasn't too happy about it. Lojban gismu are supposed to represent > popular knowledge as well as scientific categorization. Roaches are a > particular kind of pest, and the broader jalra means that we need a > lujvo for that previously clear concept. Note that there is a folk-taxonomic similarity as well: both are house pests. > I am convinced primarily > because we don't have gismu for locust/grasshopper, which are probably > equally important in some cultures. > > But this makes me want to look at the remining insects and make sure > they are all covered somehow in a subcategory if they are commonly > recognized enough to be talked about. Specific problem I see: beetles > and true 'bugs'. I will try to investigate a bit, and maybe propose a new gismu if needed. Beetles are certainly a problem: THEOLOGIAN: What can we deduce about God from his creation? J.B.S. HALDANE [biologist and Marxist]: An inordinate fondness for beetles. > Semi-related issue is a word for clam/oyster/shellfish and snail. Our broad > definition of shell isn't especially useful for animal life that is often > distinguished by the shell. Good point. I'll look into this too. > kagni: interchange x2 and x3 places > kagni: rationale: purpose more useful than charterer? > > Possibly, but not necessarily: the megacorporations like the Japanese > have are better identified by nationality of charter than by a specific > purpose, and indeed most discussion of companies in an international > environment will probably have the counortant. In > general, I think that tools and apparati are going to tend to have the > most complex place structures, and they probably should. Your rationale got garbled, but I don't much care anyway. > salta: "x1 is a quantity of..." can't be mass; "set ext." is not used > salta: for "x1 (mass)" read "x1"; for "x2 (set ext.)" read "x2" > sanso: for "x3 (set ext.)" read "x3" > > Don't understand - these are not the only occurances of set. ext. vs. > mass for components of a mixture, and I don't see what is distinct about > them. Among the things we were trying to cover with this mass/set > extent, is the possibility of an incomplete specification of > ingredients. The wording should be consistent among all of them. I've forgotten what I was getting at here. > skoto: delete "(metaphor: Gaelic/Celtic)" > skoto: rationale: use le'avla for "Gaelic" (includes Eire) and "Celtic" (includes Wales, Brittany, etc.) > > Disagree. We want the broader meaning, if necessary at the expense of > the narrower one; cf. your comment on polno. Scotland really didn't > meet the criteria, but JCB had it as a prim. Note also that per my > dictionary, Gaelic non-technically refers to highland Scottish unless > specifically prefixed by "Irish". Now, whether extending Gaelic to > Celtic is appropriate, I'm not sure. I would not have qualms with > Irish = west-skoto Scottish = north-skoto Welsh = south-skoto > Brittany = fraso-skoto Somehow this one bothers me a lot more than polno for Micronesia or Melanesia, perhaps only because of English-language parochialism. But if it's going to mean "Gaelic" (which is a pretty vague term), then I would argue for a change in keyword even if the gismu is left alone. > zgike: delete "performed by x3" > zgike: rationale: music need not be performed; use cusku or tigni > > xatsi, xexso, petso, femti: change "1x10**" to "1E" or "1e" This one is obsolete: ignore it. It resulted from a bug in early versions of the English-order algorithm. (Those are the only gismu with a "*" character in the part of the place structure outside parentheses.) > This probably also means that the cf. abbrevaiation isn't > as appropriate as q.v. or some other latinate that I don't know very well. "cf." just means "compare", so is appropriate wherever a contrast of whatever sort is being drawn. "q.v." means "quod vide" = "which see" and is appropriate when a cross reference appears incidentally in text, the equivalent of bold face or small caps. It is no longer used in dictionaries. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.