From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Oct 6 21:50:32 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 6 Oct 1993 15:54:29 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 6 Oct 1993 15:54:07 -0400 Message-Id: <199310061954.AA18806@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7415; Wed, 06 Oct 93 15:52:17 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0317; Wed, 06 Oct 93 15:54:34 EDT Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 20:50:32 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: New "jutsi" (species) proposal To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 06 Oct 93 14:31:27 D.) <199310061831.AA15720@access.digex.net> Status: RO X-Status: > > What is the essential difference between klesi & jutsi? Jutsi > > implies hierarchical classification, while klesi implies some > > defining feature? > > Under the present scheme, there is no difference to speak of except that > "jutsi" is confined to Linnaean taxa. But that is no argument against > having a different gismu: there is no difference between "remna" and "nanmu" > except that "nanmu" is confined to males. The gismu list is not a basis > vector! > > Under my new scheme, the two are quite disjoint: "klesi" relates a subclass > to a superclass and a defining property, whereas "jutsi" relates a class > to its level in the hierarchy. Well this is surely an argument in favour of your scheme then. While there is in principle nothing against having virtually synonymous gismu (or gismu that are not semantically differentiated in a useful way), it is surely preferable to have them cover relatively distinct areas of semantic space, or, if one includes the other, to have the included gismu express a salient subclass that, were it not not expressed by the gismu, might otherwise have to be expressed by an oft-used gismu. But I suggest that it would be more useful to broaden _jutsi_ "relating a class to its level in a hierarchy" to the meaning "x1 is at node x2 of hierarchy x3". This might be supplemented by lujvo defining relative positions between two nodes in a hierarchy (this would allow one to talk of 'aunts' in the sense it is used in phrase-structure grammar). And