From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 24 13:29:22 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Dag1Y-0004sQ-LV for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:12 -0700 Received: from web81310.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.85]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dag1V-0004sC-CK for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20050524202952.70535.qmail@web81310.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:52 PDT Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: railgun To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10034 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 12:38:41PM -0700, John > E Clifford wrote: > > So, I shouldn't answer your questions? > > > > Getting back to the issue, then, in the long > word for "gun", all > > of the places come from {cecla} and {xarci}. > The use of {jinme} > > for the bullets is either superfluous or > inaccurate (if you think > > that all bullets are metal, then it is the > one, if you accept, > > say, ceramic bullets, the other). > > *boggle* > > jinme is in there to *distinguish* bullets that > are only used to > fire metal bullets from other types, such as > those that fire ceramic > or rubber bullets. So it is neither > superfluous nor inaccurate. Ah, but you said you were getting a word for "gun," not a more restricted concept, and so it seems to be as you use your word for the base for a different kind of gun. Of course, it is not clear that {jinme} refers to the projectile and {xukmi} to the propellant rather than the other way around, but that is just selection. It is also not clear that we are down to guns yet, since rockets at least are chemical (as often percentage wise as guns at least) and metal. But the issue is mainly the other way, not does this word pick out the right thing (though that is nice) but does this word do a good job for the thing picked out. > > If you need to distinguish from other > projecting weapons, then > > guns are the ones that are 1) tubular and 2) > work by explosions, > > i.e., a sudden expansion of a fluid, > > A *fluid*? > > Ok, umm, you've just made it clear that you > don't know how guns > work. Unless, perhaps, you mean for the > expanding gasses to be > considered a fluid? And so they were back in my college days. Has science (and engineering) changed so much in this area? > However, what you just said does *not* > distinguish "guns that fire > metal bullets" from BB guns or air guns or > paint guns, and hence is > utterly useless for my needs. But these are all guns. If you were aiming at something else, say so (NOT after the fact). > Lojban allows having more than one word > depending on one's needs, > you know. Yes, but your needs did not enter into the discussion. Your word is still not too great for your needs. I remember the two German cowboys facing of at hoch Mittag and one saying (more or less) "Mach d' Handschiessgewehr los." Lojban should do better. > > {xukmi} enters very incidentally into the > picture (puffs have > > priority). > > Perhaps you have a different sense of xukmi > than I do; I'm using > xukmi to refer to the explosive substance, i.e. > the stuff that in > English is called "gunpowder". I understood that just fine (though I though of cordite); the point was that to be a gun the propellant must make a pop, chemicals are just one way of doing that (pumps-and-valves are the other main one) so not really what separates fguns from other launchers (as noted, rockets use chemicals too).