From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Dec  7 14:27:05 1995
Reply-To: Steve Hazel <hazel@TURING.CS.STEDWARDS.EDU>
Date: Thu Dec 7 14:27:05 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Steve Hazel <hazel@TURING.CS.STEDWARDS.EDU>
Subject:      ma'i - a standard for standards
To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
Status: OR
Message-ID: <Jckps6Yw5EP.A.mCF.Gu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Robert Chassell recently said:

>Remember, a gismu is always a relationship among all its places.
>Unless overtly removed using the (much deprecated) {zi'o}, a place is
>part of the meaning of a gismu.  English is not quite like this.

>A language should make it clear that `by standard' is always closely
>relevant to at least some concepts.

So you're saying that there is an implied standard for the immaturity of
a male, and not one for the blueness of a color?  I think a language
should make it clear that standards are closely related to many
(all?) concepts.  It is not often nessesary to specify this, though, and
so concepts should be given equal relation to standards by allowing an
optional modifier to specify an already-existant standard.  In my
opinion, {ma'i} does this very nicely.

co'o mi'e stiv

Steven Hazel
hazel@turing.cs.stedwards.edu
e'osai ko sarji la lojban