From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:49:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 11195 invoked from network); 2 Apr 1997 23:47:39 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 2 Apr 1997 23:47:39 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.79ABF414@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 1:47:39 +0100 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:07:18 -0600 Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: RET: proposing a lujvo X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3347 Lines: 95 Message-ID: <7duiSnQVleE.A._IH.ox0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> la lojbab. spuda mi di'e > Most likely, for many concepts, there could exist > several plausible words and they might have a variety > of place structures according to the lujvo making > chapter of the refgrammar (or any other means of > determining said place structures). Let's look again at my proposed place structure for {gimterzbavla} (gismu ingredient word): x1 $zbasu3 $=valsi1 x2 $gismu1 x3 $valsi3 I put gismu1 in the 2nd place because I felt that the meronym-holonym relation was the most important in the {gimterzbavla} concept. But valsi3 is related to zbasu3=valsi1 yet unrelated to gismu1. In my proposed place structure, gismu1 makes a kind of wall which separates valsi3 from the related sumti zbasu3=valsi1. This wall of separation strikes me as unfortunate or, at best, inelegant. I wonder if the place structure x1 $zbasu3 $=valsi1 x2 $valsi3 x3 $gismu1 might not be better than the one I've proposed. As there is no authority for deciding such issues, I'd appreciate advice from just about anybody. > I am not sure I know what you mean by [{solsetyvi'u}] > - removing a layer of a star not being something that > occurs in everyday life. No, but it is one of the only two methods thus far proposed for improving the likelihood that DNA-kind will still exist in 6000000000 years. The other method: creating new biospheres by terra- forming planets (or other habitats) elsewhere in space. > There is key context information missing like who/what > is doing the removal, I've thought about that. But {solsetyvi'u} should prolong the {selxaktei} of the sun, no matter who or what is doing it. Big satellites orbiting near the sun, powered by solar energy, could generate intense magnetic fields that would peel a layer of hydrogen off the sun - or so say proponents of {solsetyvi'u}. > and what is left after this removal, that would likely > be implicit in a proper definition of solsentyvi'u. The lujvo definitions I've seen appear to follow a set of conventions which differ from those used in English definitions, & even from those used in gismu definitions. > It is not clear what you mean by "layer" either. This would be defined by the satellites - their size, their number, their distance from the sun, the intensity of their magnetic fields - & by the internal electro- magnetic structure of the sun. So the meaning of "layer" is likely to remain unclear throughout my lifetime. > Clearly going around coining Lojban words for a list of > English words/concepts is not a particularly definitive > approach to adding new vocabulary. Of the lujvo I've proposed in this thread, two of them - {solsetyvi'u} & {selxaktei} - don't closely resemble any English word or concept known to me. But the other one began as a direct attempt to translate a concept from English. At first I tried to produce a Lojbanic translation of the English word "prolong". Then I decided that the time component of "prolong" was already specified elsewhere, so I tried to translate "lengthen" instead. Eventually I decided that the most appropriate lujvo was {zengau}, "agentive increase", which still relates to words & concepts found in English, but doesn't resemble "prolong" much at all. So that which I tried to say underwent a process of change as I was trying to say it in Lojban. co'omi'e markl.