Message-Id: <199512230531.HAA08256@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 23 Dec 1995 00:29:33 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: misc responses to Jorge from last month, esp. SEI
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1991
Lines: 47

>
>Then they would be {blanu bancu} and {xunre bancu}, I suppose. How
>does the current {skari} place structure help?

One possibility (the easiest) is to define colors in terms of light frequencies
 and ranges thereof, in which case the x2 of skari could be a frequency range
measurement sumti.

>There is no tanru here. {ta ckaji le ka [ke'a] blanu} means that {ta blanu},
>doesn't it?
>


Modulo your use of ke'a %^)

I think they are similar.  But I am not sure.  A red and black ball
might be ckaji but not skari le ka xunre, perhaps?  I think of characteristics
as being more loosely used to some extent.

Of course the current place structure of skari includes the x3 and x4 which
defintely makes them different.  But I get the nagging suspicions that
ta ckaji le ka blanu is less about the fact that ta blanu as it is about
a manifesting of a property by ta.  (there are also the related gismu
for "innate" and "behavior" that can be compared with ckaji).

>Those people can make a technical lujvo if they wish. Gismu are not supposed
>to be for overtechnical concepts.


I agree.  But then we still have to answer the question "what  is "blue""
that they and others will ask.  In the meantime, they will indeed build a
lujvo, but it will be off of skari.  The thing is that we do not define
colors necessarily in terms of being the same as some object of that color
- we may not KNOW of an object of the appropriate color, so your
proposed definition falls short of what is needed, even if the current one
is abit  nebulous.

>You could do the same with the simpler "x1 is the colour of x2" definition.
>Then you put lo broda be li hue pi'e brightness pi'e saturation in the x2
>place.

This sounds like you are just using the x1 and the x2 places of the current
skari, just wording x2 a little differently.  But you can say anything
with the current definition that you can say with that formulation, since
the current one is a superset of that one. (if I understand you).

lojbab