Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0suNX0-0000ZLC; Sun, 17 Sep 95 20:29 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.12+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA21425 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 20:29:26 +0300 Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (MAILER@CUNYVMV2) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V5.0-3 #2494) id <01HVE97AGZB4000HT5@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> for veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 20:30:22 +0200 (EET) Received: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@CUNYVM) by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1740; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:29:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:28:33 -0400 (EDT) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: some gismu queries Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HVE97B3446000HT5@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2382 Lines: 62 And: > (1) Why do so many gismi have a conditions sumti, when we > (quite rightly) have {va'o}? Let all conditions sumti be > deleted. I reckon if this was put to a vote there'd be an > overwhelming majority in favour. Same for {ma'i} replacing > by-standard places, etc. I remember Jorge & others having > made the same point, but I forget if there's any good > argument against it. I agree, of course. > (2) Is > jdari jar firm 'hard' > x1 is firm/hard/resistant/unyielding to force x2 > equivalent to {tinsa fe [inwardly]}? > tinsa stiff > x1 is stiff/rigid/inflexible/resistant in direction > x2 against force x3 I think there is more to it than that. {jdari} only makes sense of objects considered in their three dimensions. In other words, the shape of the object is irrelevant. {tinsa} makes sense for effectively one or two dimensional objects. If we consider effectively one-dimensinal objects, there are at least three degrees of rigidity: in the way that a pencil lead is rigid but a copper wire is not, and in the way that a copper wire is rigid but a rubber band is not. How to express this in the x2 I have no idea. For effectively two dimensional objects there are four ways (more if the object is not totally symmetric): a metal sheet is totally rigid, a paper sheet is flexible in one direction at a time, a cloth sheet is flexible in both directions at the same time, and a rubber sheet is flexible in both directions and stretchable. {tcena} covers the stretching part, but I don't know if that means that {tinsa} has nothing to do with it or also covers it. For effectively three dimensional objects, the only way for there to be flexibility is if accompanied by some stretching or compressing, unless we are allowed to flex into a forth dimension. In general, I haven't figured out yet how to deal with places that are defined as "in direction x" or "in dimension x". Any suggestions? How would you say {fe [inwardly]} anyway? > (3) Is there a difference between: > kavbu kav capture 'catch' > x1 captures/catches/apprehends x2 with trap/restraint x3 > pinfu pif prisoner 'captive' > x1 is a prisoner/captive of x2, restrained/held by means/force x3; > > Or, more specifically, is {kavbu} {x1=p1=k2 pifcoa x2=p2=k1 > x3=p3 tahi k3}? It seems like it is. Jorge