Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931006234651.288@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 1993 17:46:28 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: vilva
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: long, but major topic: lean lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
Content-Length: 2357
Lines: 62

> > > lojbab
> > Jorge
> John
Jorge


> > > Moreover, neither of these expresses what we USUALLY want to say for a
> > > doghouse, which is that
> > >
> > > x1 is a gerzda (house-for-dogs) of-dog (specific) x2
> >
> > This is true only if you give dogs their preferred domestic animal status,
> > which gerku by itself does not suggest. You wouldn't want {mantyzda} to mean
> >
> > x1 is an ant-nest of ant (specific) x2,
> >
> > but rather
> >
> > x1 is an ant-nest of ants of species x2.
>
> I don't think this point is particularly strong, as "gerku" and "manti" are
> not necessarily perfectly coordinate.

Even for {bakyzda}, I don't think it makes much sense to have

x1 is a cow-house of cow (specific) x2

> > I think this is the general case, and if you want the other for dogs, it's
> > only because we tend to think of them more as individuals, than as just
> > a member of their species.
>
> One might argue that the true Lojban word for "domestic dog" is "gerkypre",
> with place structure "x1 is a doggish-individual".

This doesn't get rid of the race. My point is that to have the race of dogs
when viewed as individuals would be like having it for {remna}. I'm not
proposing that either of these be changed. I'm just trying to find the
reason why the {se gerku} disappears from {gerzda}.

> > > Similarly, if "I go to France" and "you go to France", we can say "we go
> > > to France" without implying that we started from the identical origina,
> > > used the identical route, as well as the identical means.
> >
> > Are you saying that {mi e do klama le frasygugde} means the same as
> > {mi'o klama le frasygugde}? I think the latter means that we start
> > from the same origin, same route and means, is this wrong?
>
> Yes, it is.  "zo'e" (or elision, which semantically is the same thing) is
> really, really undefined.  Context can fill in anything at all, with any
> quantification.  To express that we both go to France with the same
> origin, route, and means, you must say something like:
>
>         mi .e do klama le frasygu'e da de di
>
> which when logically expanded has the right effect.  BTW, "mi'o" does not
> mean "mi .e do", but rather "mi joi do": it is a mass pronoun.

I think this is what I said, no? Doesn't {mi joi do klama le frasygugde}
require the same origin? (Actually only one origin, for the mass.)

Jorge