From lojbab Fri Feb 10 06:16:34 1995
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 06:16:26 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199502101116.AA22590@access4.digex.net>
Subject: Re: jorne

>Lojbab:
>> You can call it that.  I would call it a garna se dandu bukpu.
>> It certainly isn't a lanci to me, zi'o or no zi'o.
>
>That it is not a lanci is precisely my point. And if a patterned
>oblong of cloth fluttering from a flagpole cannot be a lanci be
>ziho then {ziho} is of no use whatever.

"Cannot be."  Well, it COULD be given the definition of "zi'o".  
>I< just wouldn't use it.  Using zi'o is kinda of metaphorizing off of
lanci - saying "its not a lanci relationship, but it is similar, but the
'x' place/role is not relevant.  Thus you are involing the place that
is not there, and then specifically denying it.  I prefer a more
explicit denial of the place like selylancyclaxylanci if I feel that much
need to invoke and then deny (especially if I can invoke some more obvious
'lack' then a simple conversion like smunyclaxylanci).

But I prefer just to be a little more smarter in using the place structures 
as they are.  rather than trying to stretch the meaning of lanci to fit its
range of English usages, I try to find a more minimal claim that does not
invoke the meaning in the first place.  'mornybukpu', or 'seldandybukpu'
do so, and the result is a lujvo rather than a grammatical structure, about
the same length for Zipf concerns, clearer on hearing it what the intent is
(unless you are looking for translation ease), and I think more Lojbanic
since it relies on the Lojban meanings of the words rather than trying to
map the English semantic space onto the Lojban word (which is what I think
all usages of zi'o I've ever seen are really trying to do).

lojbab