Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931006215337.448@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Wed, 6 Oct 1993 20:50:32 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: vilva
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: New "jutsi" (species) proposal
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed,
              06 Oct 93 14:31:27 D.) <199310061831.AA15720@access.digex.net>
Content-Length: 1504
Lines: 32

> > 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