Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qbZCi-00004yC; Fri, 19 Aug 94 22:02 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6099; Fri, 19 Aug 94 22:00:48 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6095; Fri, 19 Aug 1994 22:00:46 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6294; Fri, 19 Aug 1994 20:59:33 +0200 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 14:52:26 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Old and new X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2866 Lines: 75 la lojbab cusku di'e > Excluding PEOPLE, when we say "How old is this thing?" we often mean "How > long have you had it?", which IS more-or-less agreeing with slabu. "How old is this house?" doesn't mean "How long have you had it?". Even something more personal, like "How old are these clothes?" doesn't mean that. It usually means "How long has it/have they been in existance?". Can we say in Lojban that a house is citno, ("short in elapsed duration"), or does {citno} only mean "young", i.e. only applies to animate beings? There seem to be three concepts: 1- Age of animate beings English: young - old Lojban: citno - tolci'o 2- Age of objects English: new - old Lojban: ?citno - ?tolci'o 3- Novelty English: new - old Lojban: cnino - slabu For example, when someone says that they put new tires to their car, they usually are talking about the "age" of the tires, not their novelty. When someone says "I just discovered a very interesting old book", they mean old in age, since obviously it's a novelty for them. > The only > question is when we talk about age is some absolute sense, which can be > expressed as jmive temci and in a lot of other ways. But my original > reconciliation fo the two meanings of "old" was to interpret age in years > as "long familiarity with the world/life", which could therefor be jmive-slabu. That's familiarity _to_ the world/life, rather than with it. "Long familiarity with the world/life" would have to be {se slabu}. I think it's a rationalization to allow slabu to have both meanings. > Note that I also have "nilnalci'o" defined as a lujvo for age, and both will > show up in the E-list in the dictionary (pronbably with some clarifying > remarks in this case). What's the argument against {nilci'o}? Similarly, does "length" have to be {nilclani}, or can it also be {niltordu}? > Note also that I have started using nalci'o instead of tolci'o for the > 'other' gloss of "old". "tolci'o", as a polar opposite, should not mean > merely "old", but the extreme: "ancient". Well, I don't think "old" means "other-than-young". {tcetolci'o} can be used for "ancient". But in this case, it is a problem of how you interpret the English words, the Lojban ones are clear. > Probably the slabu based words for age will tend to fade out since others > are getting established and used. If the dictionary says that "slabu" can be used as old in age, that's how it is going to be used, I don't see why that use would fade, since it is probably the most common one. > But they HAVE seen use in Lojban text, > and I am hesitant to remove them since I am unconvinced that they are > wrong, as opposed to merely 'not the best'. I'm not saying they are wrong, but you are allowing slabu to mean tolcitno, and at the same time saying it doesn't mean that. Jorge