From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Dec 9 05:39:00 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Dec 1993 10:40:32 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Dec 1993 10:16:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199312091516.AA03525@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3100; Thu, 09 Dec 93 10:38:21 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8069; Thu, 09 Dec 93 10:39:56 EDT Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 10:39:00 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: responses to Jorge on fat gismu To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199312090119.AA02492@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Dec 8, 93 08:18:58 pm Status: RO X-Status: la xorxes. joi la lojbab. cusku di'e > > >8- I don't see why the x3 of {diklu} is not a part of its x2. > > > > diklu? I don't see how this comment could apply to diklo, for which x2 > > and x3 MUST be different. A locus is a specific, which needs an > > associated larger and more general range in order to be meaningful. > > -------------------------- > diklo klo local > x1 is local to x2; x1 is confined to locus x2 within range x3 > [indicates a specific location/value within a range; e.g. a hits b. > What is the locality on b that a hits?]; > -------------------------- > > I can't fit {diklo} in that example. > It seems to translate as {abu darxi by fo ma} > This explains the places of darxi, but not those of diklo. I suppose > that the event of hitting is not confined to a locality on b. > > Why can't the range x3 be specified as a part of x2, when needed? > Could we have a couple of examples? Since x1 is confined to x2, what > is the point of adding the additional confinement of x2 to x3? I tend to agree with Jorge. It seems to me that locus and range are alternatives: maybe the x2 place could have the option of being a "bi'i" interval when a range is wanted. > > Note also that cpedu has an x4 manner, whereas the manner is implicit in > > pikci (respectful, supplicant) > > I understand pikci now, I suppose I was confused by the similar meaning > of cpedu having x2 and x3 interchanged. Does this imply some kind of > emphasis, or is it just a calque of the English expressions? > > I would like to start a campaign against the x4 of cpedu, is anyone > interested? Bob? :) > The only gismu with "manner" places (besides tarti, where it's the whole > point of the gismu) that I could find are: > > cpedu cpe request > x1 requests/asks/petitions/solicits for x2 of/from x3 in manner/form x4 > [also demand (= mi'ecpe)]; > > rinsa greet > x1 (agent) greets/hails/[welcomes/says hello to]/responds to arrival of x2 > in manner x3 (action) > > I can more or less understand it in the case of rinsa, it could even be > rephrased as "by action x3", but this is not the meaning in the case of > cpedu. It seems to call for an attitude. Why not leave it to attitudinals? I think it is not an attitude, but rather a "ve cusku"; you may request by letter, or by "bacru"-ing, or by gesture. "Form" is the more important concept. In addition, the word "manner" is ambiguous in English: the notice "Please leave this toilet in the manner [i.e. condition] in which you found it" prompts the question "You mean, by groping around?". > > >15- I was surprised that {misno} doesn't have an x3 place, but that's > > >ok. > > > > It is possible to be simply well-known or renowned, especially in a > > smaller community, without being well-known for some particular > > feature/event/trait/etc. > > You knew what I meant as x3, and presumably anyone would understand it > if filled with something, so in some sense the place is already there :) > (I can't believe I'm arguing to add a place) > Are you saying that a well-known/renowned person in a small community > would be just as misno as Madonna? Couldn't we say that they're misno > for their good character or because they're active in the community > or something? (more likely because they're somewhat moneyed, but let's > not be so cynical :). This reminds me of Marshall McLuhan's definition of "celebrity": someone who is well-known for his well-known-ness. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.