Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:10:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802250010.TAA11695@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: properties and locations X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 249b5592e1e456124dc5347f198eb4c2 X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 25 09:22:44 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - la rik di'e cusku >> le bitmu cu klama le ka blabi kei le ka xunre kei >> le ka blabyxunre kei le nu mi cintypunji >> The wall goes to being white from being red through being >> whitish-red by the means of my painting it. > >If this were to be adopted as standard lojban, and I say simply: > Le karce klama > The car comes. > >Would I be saying that the car is changing color, or traveling? [le karce cu klama] Either changing location or changing some property. The use of a color was just an example, I could say: le karce cu klama le ka do ponse kei le ka mi ponse The car goes to being owned by you from being owned by me. >(Please excuse the capitals on my lojban. My mail editor insists on >automatically putting them there and I'm tired of fighting it :-( I have to fight my editor to get the apostrophes between vowels right. If I just type normally I get things like la=E9 di=FA. >If I say {le ve klama cu xamgu} am I saying that a route to be traveled >is good, or that some particular color transition is good? Some property transition, location being the most probable. >Obviously, we can just say that the meaning is derived from context, if >that satisfies everyone. Right, but this is not something new. If I say {le se dunda cu xamgu} I could be saying that the gift is good, or that the conferred property is good. That's canonical gi'uste. >>Remember that the gi'uste definitions are only guidelines. But I took > >That's odd. I have a vague memory of a rather vicious debate about how >the definition of djuno in the gi'uste should be taken :-) There was an implied smiley there :) Perhaps I should clarify my position about this: I don't mind changes in the gi'uste, in fact I would like to see changes in order to make words more regular and easier to learn. In the case of djuno, if it doesn't require a true x2 then we should dissociate it as much as possible from the English word "know". Up until now, to me it has meant "know" and I have been using it as such, and so has most everybody else who has used the language (djuno is a fairly common word, so many have used it). If the gi'uste is left as is, then I don't have much doubt that djuno will retain its meaning of true-x2 "know". co'o mi'e xorxes