Message-Id: <m0tJlww-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 26 Nov 1995 13:34:47 -0500
Reply-To:     Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: lalxu
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Content-Length: 1274
Lines: 30

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Goran:
> >How is lalxu defined, lojbab?  I found myself asking why doesn't lalxu
> >have a place for composition, like xamsi.
>
> I had to admit that I was stumped for a few moments.
>
> The only reason we gave xamsi a material place was to allow use of the
> word for "atmosphere".  This was after someone asked whether the liquid
> layer for enough down in Jupiter's atmosphere would be considered a sea.

The place for material seems reasonable, what I don't really see the point
for is the planet place. I don't usually associate the sea with the
planet any more than I would a mountain, for instance.

> If we change lalxu, we also need to change rirxe, I suspect, though
> "flecu" might also do.
>
> But before doing that, I will respect Jorge poi prami loi cinla gismu by
> looking elsewhere.  You pass the buck to me.  I defer to Jorge to argue
> against (or for) adding places.  He likes to do so more than me.

Ok, you asked for it. I would like to see the x2 of xamsi removed, so
that it is left as "x1 is a sea of fluid/composition x2". That way, if
you want to talk about location, you use {lalxu}, and if you want to
talk about composition you use {xamsi}. If it's a matter of size, you
can use modifiers like barda, cmalu, etc.

Jorge