From dpt@abel.math.harvard.edu Sat Mar 6 22:44:53 2010 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 16:19:20 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: {farlu} To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes: > > Anybody agree with me? > > I don't have much problem with the x2 and x3 of {farlu}, you can > always say {la alis cu farlu le cnita le gapru}. But that adds no information; and furthermore, it's more in the character of a route specification than a source/destination. > The one I don't > like much is the x4, which I have no idea how to fill. If ever > needed, there is {bai} for that, but I'm not even sure how to say > "gravity". I thought something with {lacpu}, but its x3 makes > it really difficult. I, on the other hand, have no particular problem with the x4. Recall it can be a gravity well or frame of reference. In almost all cases, it's going to be {le terdi}, but in SF stories, for instance, it might have a different value. Alternatively, you could perhaps say {le sraji}. {lacpu} is probably inappropriate for "gravity" because of its x3, as you say. (Though for gravity the "locus" might be the whole body, {le sevzi} perhaps?) As another stab, I'd try {le vlipa be lenu farlu} or n{le farvli}, or maybe {le fargau}. (Though this is only really appropriate if those extraneous places of {farlu} are excised.) > In general, all the places like "in frame of reference", "by standard", > "under conditions", "in manner", etc. (which at least are usually in > the last position) seem really hard to use, and rather arbitrary. > Why does {xamgu} have a standard but {xlali} doesn't? Umm... Check again. {xlali} does have a standard in my list. I would argue for those places (though I would change the definition a little): otherwise {xamgu} and {xlali} would have to be extraordinarily vague, and there would be no way to say in what way or for what purpose x1 was good/bad. > Why does > {xanka} have "under conditions" but {gleki} doesn't? Dunno here. > Why does > {curmi} have "under conditions" but not {gasnu}? For this one, I can see a reason: {gasnu} refers to an actual event, while {curmi} is a counterfactual: x1 would allow x2 to happen in conditions x3. > Why does {cpedu} > have "in manner" but {dunda} doesn't? Dunno here too. > All those places make learning gismu much harder than it should be. > I have no problem remembering the places of {dunda}, which are > all clean and to the point, the relationship between them clear. > But {cpedu}, which could be the same, is much harder because there > is that x4 with some unclear relationship to the other three, and > since I know that there is something more to {cpedu} than I would > expect, the whole relationship becomes more blurry in my mind. Excellent point. That place is just a placeholder for adverbial characterization, which can and should be added in any number of other ways: attitudinals with {dai} or the BAI modal {ta'i} being two that leap to mind. That sort of characterization can be added to _any_ action, and it's not appropriate to have this particular place. > My hope is that all those places will simply be forgotten for lack > of use, since I doubt that I could convince Lojban Central to drop > them. Do you think we could organize a rebellion :-)? (No, I'm not really proposing another split. I am half-seriously contemplating listing my own versions of various gismu with texts I write.) > > mu'o mi'e la dilyn. > > noi gleki lonu mi te cipra ca le cerni kei > > poi romoi leme lenu mi ve bancycu'e > > i uidai zansnada .i go'i > co'o mi'e xorxes mu'o mi'e. dilyn.