From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 30 23:27:54 1995 Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3702 ; Fri, 30 Jun 95 23:27:49 BST Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 30 Jun 95 17:16:38 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt3.demon.co.uk id aa15078; 30 Jun 95 18:16 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1442; Fri, 30 Jun 95 13:14:17 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5406; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 13:11:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 12:15:06 -0500 Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" Sender: Lojban list From: "Steven M. Belknap" Subject: Re: lo gunma nabmi To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506301816.aa15078@punt3.demon.co.uk> Status: R >There is already a simple way to talk about water molecules, copper atoms, >rice grains, sand grains, etc. Those are: jausle, tuksle, risysle, cansle. > >If you want to refer to a mass of those, then {loi jausle}, {loi tuksle}, >{loi risysle}, {loi cansle}. > Sure, but I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the definitions of some concepts in the dictionary seem inconsistent or arbitrary with regard to mass description. Some use discrete definitions; some use continuous. Again, look at beans & rice: *bean, x1 is a |/pea/leguminous seed from plant [legume] x2 /:/ /=/ dembi (deb) *rice, x1 is a quantity of | [a type of grain] of strain/cultivar x2 /:/ /=/ rismi (ris) Why should /dembi/ be thought of as individuals and /rismi/ thought of as groups? Note that in English the predicate /beans/, as a food, is customarily pluralized. Sometimes we use the singular, when talking about a specific instance of Mr. Bean. In English rice implies a group. /Rices/ implies a group of individual cultivars or varieties of rice. Ain't English fun? Lets make lojban a little less "fun." >From the discussion about trobriand islander masses I inferred (perhaps mistakenly) that the particular mass designation of /ractu/ depends on the preceding cmavo: le la lo, lei, loi etc. This seems reasonable. I interpret the differences between dembo & rismi in the provisional dictionary as unintentional lexicographical consequences of lojban to English translation. Thus the english definition of dembi might be more accurately given as: *bean, x1 is at least one or is a quantify of |/pea/leguminous seed from plant [legume] x2 /:/ /=/ dembi (deb) *rice, x1 is at least one or is a quantity of | [a type of grain] of strain/cultivar x2 /:/ /=/ rismi (ris) (Some set theorist is probably going to say that they should be defined as zero or more rice grains or zero or more beans! That might be better, including the empty set IS more general...) *rabbit, x1 is a |/hare/[doe] of species/breed x2 /:/ /=/ ractu For djacu, it makes sense to me to me to define the concept broadly enough to include everything down to 1 molecule of water. It would not make sense to me to bring things down to the level of the constituent atoms of water or their constituent neutrons/protons/quarks/superstrings, as the essential properties of water we experience in everyday life are lost once you break up the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen or into smaller units. Just as the protON, neutrON, and electrON are the elementary consituents of matter, the elementary constituent of society is of course the persON :-) Notice how person, human, and people all map to /prenu/ (Seems reasonable) This suggests that the cmavo determine whether we mean a group or an individual. Notice that /ninmu/ & /nanmu/ explicitly in their definition acknowledge group or individual meanings! *people (person(s)), x1 is a person/| (noun) [not necessarily human]; x1 displays personality/a persona /:/ /=/ prenu (pre) *person, x1 is a |/people (noun) [not necessarily human]; x1 displays personality/a persona /:/ /=/ prenu (pre) *human (person not necessarily |), x1 is a person/people (noun) [not necessarily |]; x1 displays personality/a persona /:/ /=/ prenu (pre) &human, x1 of remna *human, x1 is a |/| being/man (non-specific gender-free sense); (adjective:) x1 is | /:/ /=/ remna (rem re'a) *humanoid (female), x1 is a woman/women; x1 is a female | person [not necessarily adult] /:/ [word dispreferred in metaphor/example as sexist; (use remna or prenu)] /=/ ninmu (nim ni'u) *humanoid (male), x1 is a man/men; x1 is a male | person [not necessarily adult] /:/ [word dispreferred in metaphor/example as sexist; (use remna or prenu)] /=/ nanmu (nau) *humanoid (mythical creature), x1 is a fairy/elf/gnome/brownie/pixie/goblin/kobold [mythical |] of mythos/religion x2 /:/ [also orc, giant, demon or devil (when |-form is presumed by the mythos/religion), bugbear, bogeyman]; (cf. ranmi, especially for non-| creatures of myth) /=/ crida (rid) >> I noticed this in trying to understand jorge's objections to my use of >> lei djacu >> He pointed out this could mean something other than >> /a bunch of molecules of water/ >> which is what I want it to mean. It could mean >> /a bunch of raindrops/ >> for example. (Apparently jorge thinks in lojban!) > >Not yet! > >> I would suggest that one >> or more raindrops be described in lojban as >> le litki bratu > >or also {le djacu dirgo}. good point. a water drop is not necessarily raining... > >> and that >> lei djacu >> be reserved for water considered as discrete molecules of H2O. > >But that is not as useful a concept as the everyday concept of >water. If you say {ta djacu} with your definition, you'd be saying >"that is a water molecule". I disagree. "Useful" to me requires that it be accurate! Talking about water as an infinitesimally divisible mass is not accurate, at least as far as science can tell us. ta djacu means "there is one or more water molecules, exact meaning determined by context" That definition includes BOTH our meanings, which can be distinguished by cmavo or listener questioning. >That may be useful when using an electron >microscope, but not most of the time for most people. When you do >want to say that, you can say {ta djacu selci}, or, if you don't >like so many syllables, then {ta jausle}. If I'm doing scanning-tunneling microscopy then it might mean one molecule. But if I'm thirstily asking my wife for a drink I mean "that extremely large number of water molecules you have there." Context is critical in human to human communication. I think the (minor) inconsistencies in the dictionary suggest you are putting far too much weight on the literal english used to translate the lojban predicate /djacu/ into English. I agree that the definition is confusing. But by analogy to other predicates, it seems inescapable that the unmodified predicate djacu must mean "one or more (possibly many more!) molecules or a quantity of water" One form of context could be inclusion of units (moles, grams, milliliters) as a selbri as part of the definition. And I haven't even begun to talk about isotopes, contaminants, temperature, ambient & vapor pressure etc. All this complexity is not necessary in every discourse, but IMHO it ought to be built into the structure of the predicate, available for use when the cmavo tease out *exactly* what flavor of djacu the speaker intends. > >> IMHO the >> definitions of concepts which can commonly be considered discretely or >> continuously ought to be adjusted to allow for either continuous or >> discrete use with lei or loi. > >But lei/loi already makes a different distinction. In fact, you can >use {lei} as you propose, because {lei djacu} is "the mass of those >I have in mind that I'm calling quantities of water", and you can think >of the quantities as being molecules. The question is whether anyone >who listens will understand your intent. If the context makes it clear >that you are talking about molecules then there's no problem. > This is very interesting to me. Jorge has clarified what the problem is. (As he often does.) Jorge & I apparently interpret the meaning of /djacu/ in the dictionary differently. Now the question is (shades of interprative literature class 301!) "What did the author (lojbab?) intend?" Or, since the dictionary has not yet been published, what do others think /djacu/ ought best mean? The atomic theory seems rather well accepted. Shouldn't we build its contexts into the elementary structure of the language? Shouldn't speakers who want to use ancient, more narrow & inaccurate concepts of matter have to blurt out an extra bridi or invent a new word to describe "infinitesimally divisible water?" I have no objection to someone else doing this. I'm partial to the atomic view of matter, myself. :-) -Stivn Steven M. Belknap, M.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria email: sbelknap@uic.edu Voice: 309/671-3403 Fax: 309/671-8413