Message-Id: <m0p7LP7-0000PYC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 8 Dec 1993 04:39:44 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab%ACCESS.DIGEX.NET@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab%ACCESS.DIGEX.NET@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
Subject:      gismu comments: OPEN ISSUE- lebna et.al.
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Cc:         nsn@krang.vis.mu.oz.au
Content-Length: 5226
Lines: 97

The following is the only unresolved issue on my list regarding the
draft dictionary rebaseline of the gismu list.  Please comment.

John Cowan wrote (and others commented on, apprarently agreeing):
>> lebna take x1 takes/gets/gains/obtains/seizes/[removes] x2
>> (object/property) from x3 (possessor) 2b 81 [also confiscate,
>> appropriate]; [acquire with volition such that x1 gains possession; x3
>> is possessor and not merely source, alienation is implied]; (cf. punji,
>> cpacu where volition or previous possession is not necessarily implied,
>> vimcu for alienation where x1 need not gain possession)
>
>Is "removing a property" really the same as "removing a thing"?  I think
>"lebna" should be confined to the latter, and some other form found for
>"causing a thing not to have a property any longer".

Similar arguments were raised on other words discussed at the same time
of this, including jbera and kargu.  Unfortunately, consensus coalesced
differently on each of the different words.  In the case of jbera, it
was agreed that only an object and not a property could be borrowed.  In
the case of kargu, it was generally agreed that properties are costly,
and that saying that an object is costly really means that you are
saying that 'ownership of the object', but that this was pedantic, and
we should allow both property and object in the place.

I am inclined to believe that the latter argument probably applies to
many gismu, and have changed several gismu related to transfers
generally associated with economic transactions (actually, those that
crossreferenced directly or indirectly to pleji) to have consistent
wording.  Following is the new wording for kargu as an example

  kargu costly x1 (object/commodity/property/event) is
  costly/expensive/dear to x2 by standard x3 =5e 55 [x1 may be a specific
  object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a property; pedantically, for
                                                       |----------------
  objects/commodities, this is sumti-raising from ownership of the
  ----------------------------------------------------------------
  object/commodity (= po'erkargu for unambiguous semantics)]; (cf. vamji,
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  dirba, vajni, jdima, pleji, canja, jerna, jinga)

gismu consistent with this (with occasional qualifications) are canja
(exchange), cirko (lose), cnemu (reward), dirba (precious), dunda
(give), friti (offer), jdima (price), jerna (earn), jinga (gain), kargu
(costly), pleji (pay), prali (profit), sfasa (punish), vamji (value),
vecnu (sell/buy)

(If you disagree with any of these, please speak up - the wording on
each is virtually identical to the above)

For different reasons based on John's observation of Roman law, cerda
(inherit) was allowed to keep its property/object dichotomy in x2, but
it seems that the result is more or less the same as for the words
above.  I therefore made the wording more or less similar to the above.

On the other hand, because consensus went the other way on jbera
(borrow), I removed the reference to property-borrowing from that word.
Given the above, I'm a bit ill at ease about this, especially given
natural language use of 'borrow' which certainly extends to properties,
if not to events/activities.

Now I'm stuck on the borderline with lebna, and its relatives cpacu and
vimcu.  These arguably could be classed with jbera and made objects-only
or with pleji by association with cerda, dunda, etc.  An argument for
lebna (and jbera for that matter) is that it is certainly a property
that is being taken/borrowed when a word is borrowed from a natural
language, and that concept is historically enshrined in "le'avla" even
if many now think "fu'ivla" is a better word.  But then, come to think
of it, we should add "fukpi" to the list, since the borrowed word is not
a copy, but rather it has a property that is a copy of the property of
the other-language word.  Luckily, I don't see any obvious extensions to
this chain of reasoning, though perhaps at least somewhat
metaphorically, a large number of words could have properties in places
normally holding objects, and there would be a similar sumti-raising
transform of an abstract involving either ponse (as with most of the
above), ckaji, zasti, klani, lifri, and maybe a couple of other key
words that relate an object and an abstract.)


*  At the moment, these 4 words (lebna = take, cpacu = get, fukpi = copy,
*  vimcu = remove) are being left with their definitions the same or
*  effectively the same as the version last posted to the ftp site. jbera
*  and cerda are currently worded as follows:

cerda ced heir x1 is an heir to/is to inherit x2 (object/quality) from
x3 according to rule x4 a 13 [pedantically, inheriting an object should
be a sumti-raising (tu'a if non-abstract in x2) of inheriting loka ponse
the object - the ownership of the object (= po'ercerda, po'erselcerda
for unambiguous semantics)]; (cf. jgina)

jbera jer borrow x1 (agent) borrows/temporarily takes/assumes x2
(object) from source x3 for interval x4 =3m 6 [credit (= jernu'e);
borrow/assume a property or quality as a chameleon does (= zaskai,
zasysmitra, zasysmitai)]; (cf. dejni)


lojbab