From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:58:19 2010 Subject: Re: your mail To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:31:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511241607.LAA27131@locke.ccil.org> from "Peter L. Schuerman" at Nov 23, 95 02:21:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1323 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 27 11:31:44 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: la stivn. joi la pitr. cusku be di'e casnu > > But Peter still fails to set an independent, nonsubjective criteria for > > distinguishing hills from mountains or heaps from nonheaps. Peter seems to > > be using the same approach Ed Meese used to define pornography, "I know it > > when I see it." Surely language, even natlangs, can accomplish more than > > that! > > It is certainly possible to define terms and concepts. It's just that > words like baldness and tallness are *already* defined. And those > definitions are true-false terms, which don't involve counting hairs or > measuring inches of height. You are either tall or not-tall. Ahem. This is, people, the Lojban list. There is no Lojban gismu for "tall"; the job is divided between "condi" (deep) and "clani" (long), each of which has a place for "by standard". (Why "deep"? Because depth and height are both vertical size, but one is measured from the top, the other from the bottom; cf. Latin "altus mons" 'high mountain' vs. "altus mare" 'deep sea'.) So when you say "John is long" or "John is deep" in Lojban, you IMPLICITLY are speaking with reference to a standard of length or depth that you may make explicit if you will. "Long" and "deep" are not one-place absolute terms! -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.