Message-Id: <199507192141.RAA13232@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:21:04 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: conceptually related gismu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

What I don't like much about those thesaurus-like classifications
is that they seem to be based only on the English keywords, rather
than on the gismu structures. I am translating the gismu list to
Spanish, and to make the translation as consistent as possible,
I've been trying to classify the gismu according to their place
structures.

Some of the classes are easy to identify. For example, there are
66 "culture" words, all with the same place structure. Another clear
class is the one with animals and plants. There are about 90 of those.
They all have the structure "x1 is a ... of species x2". However, even
in this simple case we already have exceptions. The words for "tiger"
and for "sheep" don't belong in that class, because they have an x3.
If something looks like a sheep, walks like a sheep and talks like
a sheep but isn't a part of any flock, then it is not a lanme.
I don't think the place for the flock has anything to do there. Besides,
There are other gregarious animals that don't have a place for it. The
x3 for the tigers is for the stripes, which I think also doesn't
make much sense.

Another big class is for body-parts. There are about 60, with the
structure "x1 is a ... (body-part) of x2". One exception is the
word for "nose", that has an x3 for the nostrils. Since as far as
I know there is no special word in Spanish for "nostril", the
translation looks really strange, something like "x1 is the nose
of x2, with holes x3". Why should there be a place for the nostrils
in {nazbi} but no place for the holes of the ears in {kerlo}? Not
to mention the other body parts that have holes. I think this is
just malglico. If there had been no such word as "nostrils" in
English, that place wouldn't be there, because it goes against the
systematicity.

There is another big class with structure "x1 is a ... of material x2".
One subclass of these is the one for garments. One exception here is
{cutci}: x1 is a shoe for covering/protecting feet/hooves x2, and
of material x3. Why should there be a place for the feet, when none
of the other garments have a place for the part of the body where they
are worn? The only explanation I could think of (suggested by "hooves")
is the English word "horseshoe", but I don't think this is any
justification. If we want to use "cutci" for that, there is still no
need to have a place for the feet.

Anyway, I've only mentioned some noun classes. There are also quite
a few more interesting verb classes. I'll post the whole classification
(and more complaints :) when I finish it.

Jorge