Message-Id: <m0qnzMO-00005YC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:21:43 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: remarks on gismu lexicology
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 6066
Lines: 179

> A heterogeneous assembly of comments & queries
> mostly concerning gismu lexicology.

Very interesting, too.


> (1) x2 of nitcu (need), djica (want) and cpedu
> (request), and x3 of pikci (beg) should be an
> event abstraction. "Need/want/ask/beg to have"
> should be rendered "ponse zei nitcu/djica/cpedu/
> pikci" (with x2 of the lujvo being x2 of ponse).

If we really are consistent, I wouldn't complain.
Let's see if people agree that the x2 of cpedu should
be an event.

> (2) Facki (find, discover) is redundant.
> Facki is equivalent to cilre (learn) (except that
> cilre has an x4 place for method, which is anyway
> not inappropriate for discovering.)

You could say that cilre is facki + assimilation

> (3) Sisku (seek) is redundant and too vague.

And yet so useful. (I mean, it would be useful if the x2
was an object, not a property.)

> "Mi sisku do"
> is either "Mi troci lenu mi { penmi [=encounter] / ponse
> [=possess] / jitro [=control] } do" or "I try to learn where
> you are" (don't know how to say that, but it involves
> "mi troci lenu mi cilre" (-- can someone please remind me how
> Lojban handles subordinate interrogatives, as in "I wonder
> what you're reading"?)).

        mi kucli le du'u do tcidu makau
        I wonder what you're reading.

        mi troci le nu facki le du'u do zvati makau
        I'm trying to find out where you are.


> These could be condensed into
> penmi/ponse/jitro zei troci (with x2 of lujvo being x2 of
> penmi/ponse/jitro).

Some redundancy is not necessarily bad. It is good that a word
can be defined in terms of others, otherwise we'll never have
a Lojban-Lojban dictionary.

That said, faktoi (facki troci) is a nice synonym for sisku.

clitoi (cilre troci) is more like tadni (study) than like sisku.

> (4) How to say "I search the pockets"? "mi zukte fe
> le nu catlu le daski kei fi le nu mi penmi/ponse/jitro/kavbu"?
> (Or with lujvo, "mi catlu zei zukte le daski le nu
> mi penmi/ponse/jitro/kavbu".)

Since {sisku} is not going away, sisycta (sisku catlu) may be
more clear than ctazu'e (catlu zukte). I don't see in the last
one where you get a place for the looked for object.

> I assume "catlu" means not "look" but "inspect, examine".

Sounds good. Then {catlu le daski} is enough for "search the pockets"
if you are not searching for something in them.

> (5) How to say "watch, heed, pay attention to"? 'Zgana'
> doesn't seem right.

I'v seen {kurji} used in this sense, but I don't like it.
How do you take care of an event?

> (6) simlu: x1 seems/appears to have property(ies) x2 to
> observer x3 under conditions x4.
> So "I seem blue" is "mi simlu le ka blanu"?
> Then how to say "It seems to be raining, it seems that it
> is raining"? I think we should be able to say "simlu fa
> le duhu carvi" - that is, x1 of simlu is a duhu abstraction
> and x2 is scrapped.

If you change du'u to nu, I agree. Nick mentioned this a short
while ago, too.

>"I seem blue" would be "simlu fa le duhu
> mi blanu".
>    simlu: x1 (duhu) seems-to-be-the-case to observer x2
>     under conditions x3.
> or, perhaps more usefully:
>    simlu: to observer x1 x2 (duhu) seems-to-be-the-case
>     under conditions x3.
> (This latter order avoids need for 'fa' to postpose the
> duhu clause, & lends itself as a translation of "it seems
> to me that...".)

No, I prefer the first ordering (with nu instead of du'u).
Otherwise, it turns too much into {jinvi}.

> (7) galfi: x1 (event) modifies/alters/changes x2 into x3
>     stika: x1 (event) adjusts/changes x2 (ka/ni) in amount/degree x3
> I think the x1 place of these should be abolished.
> Galfi then becomes redundant with binxo:
>     binxo: x1 becomes/changes into x2 under conditions x3

Then why change it?

> And I think binxo should have an extra place:
>     binxo: x1 changes from belonging to category (ka) x2
>       into belonging to category (ka) x3

The more lojbanic order would be into x2 from x3.

> I think some new but related meaning should be found for galfi,
> such as:
>     galfi: x1 evolves from (ka) x2 into (ka) x3 under conditions/
>       constraints x4 [e.g. natural selection]

That's {farvi}, easy to remember because it rhymes with Darwin  :)

> (8) panci: x1 is an odor/fragrance/scent/smell emitted by x2
>            and detected by observer/sensor x3
>     sumne: x1 (experiencer) smells [transitive verb] x2;
>            x2 smells/has odor to observer x1
>     ganse: x1 [observer] senses/detects/notices/is aware of
>            stimulus x2 by means x3 under conditions x4
>     vrusi: x1 is a taste/flavor of x2
> (a) Given sumne, why does panci have this x3 place? Suppose
> I want to describe the smell of an unsmelt rose.

I agree. An odo(u)r needs a smeller as much as a colo(u)r needs a seer.

> (b) Why does sumne lack a place for the odour?

For the same reason that {viska} doesn't have a place for the colo(u)r
of the seen object, I guess.

> (c) Why does 'vrusi' have no 'transitive' counterpart? I suppose
> we could have:
>     vrusi zei ganse: x1 tastes taste x2 of x3
> But in this case, why bother with having sumne?

Good question. I would add it, if it were possible.

> (d) Unless I've misunderstood, I suggest dropping the x3 of panci,
> and dropping sumne altogether, using panci zei ganse instead.

I agree with the first, but I don't think anything can be just dropped
altogether at this point.

> (9) Is there an agreed expression for look/appearance/
> countance/visual stimulus, without there being an implied
> perceiver?

I'd say {jvinu}.

Let's see:  jvinu  sance  panci  vrusi  tengu
            viska  tirna  sumne  ?????  pencu

Definitely, there's something missing.

> (10) tirna: x1 hears x2 against background/noise x3
> Could x3 be abolished, please? Otherwise, when there's
> no background noise we'll have to remember to use "xohe"
> (or whatever the sumti-abolishing cmavo is).

Hear, hear!

> (11) Is there a standard expression for 'saliva'?

The list gives molselpu'u, but I guess you don't like it. I can't
think of anything better.

> ---
> And
>

Jorge