From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:16 2010 Reply-To: Steve Hazel Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 7 14:27:05 1995 From: Steve Hazel Subject: ma'i - a standard for standards X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 7 14:27:05 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: 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