Message-Id: <199308170933.AA00299@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Tue, 17 Aug 1993 10:23:35 +0100
Reply-To: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Smoking (Was: Some how do you say it's)
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: O

And answers me further
++++++++++>

> I thought of 'tankypli' (tobacco-use) but I discarded it.
>
> pilno is currently defined " x1 uses/employs x2 (tool, apparatus, machine, age
 nt
>  , acting entity)
> for purpose x3" which doesn't seem to me to have much to do with
> what you do to a smoke.

It is appropriate: you do something to the tanko and it does something
to you.

> 'xaksu' would be better as a general
> term, now I think of it, or 'se zdile'.

Both these are possibles, but:
* x1 of xaksu is an event, & we want x1 as the smoker
* xaksu has no purpose sumti & is therefore perhaps less appropriate
than pilno.
* se zdile is perhaps too specific for the desired meaning; smoking can
be done to avert discomfort rather than for pleasure
>++++++++++

I'm sorry, but despite the current English 'use' (which seems to
subcategorise for _illegal_ drug), I cannot see that the tanko is
 a tool, apparatus, machine etc. It would be strange in English
or Lojban to 'use' food or drink, except in the special case where
the purpose is in focus: 'I use food as a boredom reliever'.

You are right as to your first and third criticisms of my suggestions,
but I maintain that in the normal case the 'purpose' is not relevant.

andruc and I were talking about this further last night, and came up
with:

tanko danmo vasxu
and
sigja danmo vasxu (sigdamva'u)

I think these do the job admirably.

We also noticed that notices that say
e'o no da vi sigdamva'u
probably really mean
e'o no da vi sigdanmo

Of course this doesn't apply to
ko na vi sigdamva'u
or
ckire ko le nu na'e sigdamva'u

        Colin