Return-Path: Received: from fiport.funet.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rctNW-00001oC; Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:19 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HMVRYYHDDC003UO4@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:14:52 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1506; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 12:15:40 +0100 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 06:16:26 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: jorne Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Logical Language Group Message-id: <01HMVRYYIQCI003UO4@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1596 Lines: 29 >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