Message-ID: <32078ED7.7CD2@ccil.org> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 14:28:39 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: male/female, man/woman, human/person References: <199608061733.NAA13081@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3187 Lines: 70 Content-Length: 3156 Lines: 67 Content-Length: 3124 Lines: 64 la marvn. cusku > > > Similarly, tanru of the form "nanmu/ninmu broda" are hard to construe. Just > > what > > is supposed to be a "male human" or "female human" attribute, beyond the > > anatomical? It's too culture-specific. > > Yes, but this isn't wha I was talking about. I was refering to the > difference between the two brivla "ninmu" and "fetpre". Perhaps I've > misunderstood what you mean, but attributes don't come into this any more > than they do in any brivla. The gismu list says that the use of "nanmu" and "ninmu" may be sexist in metaphors (tanru) and examples, not in general use. "la alis. ninmu" is an unexceptionable sentence. > A bridi is the statement of a relationship, > and to express that you have to use the words you have. To do _that_, you > have to have an agreed upon meaning for those words. True, but an agreed-on meaning is not the same as a prescribed meaning. The words of Esperanto did not have their meaning prescribed by the language designer; instead, the precise meanings were settled by usage and eventually encoded in a dictionary. > > Meaning is a sticky issue that we avoid defining as much as we can, and so > > synonymy of predicates is not part of the Lojban definition. > > How can the definer of a language avoid defining meaning of words? > Isn't meaning a fundamental necesity in both speaking and understanding a > language? I said "avoid as much as we can". In particular, we refrain from definition on whether two predicates are synonymous or not. Is "to'erbarda" the same as "cmalu"? Usage, not language design, will decide this question. > > In addition, "fetpre" may include a female cat that has a personality (to the > > speaker), whereas "ninmu" surely excludes such a one. I think the use of > > "humanoid" in the place structure is plain waffling.... female chimps? > > female ETIs? > > My understanding is that "prenu" is basically the same word as "person" > in English (at least, according to its definition in the dictionary). > Saying someone is a person doesn't imply that they are human, true, but it > also implies, in my opinion, at least sentience. The defining characteristic of "prenu" is not sentience but personality. Whether your cats, or any cats, have personalities is up to you. My cats do, so they are {mlatyprenu}. > Anyway, my point is this: why do we need gismu that can easily be > duplicated by by tanru/lujvo? It seems counter-productive to the goal of > an easily learned language. Okay, now we get to the central issue. The gismu are not intended to be in any sense a minimal set of semantic primitives. Rather, they are a practical list compiled from many sources that are intended to blanket semantic space. No claim is made that every gismu is necessary; the claim, rather, is that no predicate (except for the semantically broad and shallow areas like plants, animals, cultures, foods, and the like) cannot be covered by a gismu or a reasonable-sized lujvo. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban