From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jul 20 21:57:22 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MT7Pm-0007aA-Fq for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:57:22 -0700 Received: from pi.meson.org ([66.134.26.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MT7Pj-0007Z9-I8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:57:22 -0700 Received: (qmail 9069 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2009 00:57:13 -0400 Received: from nagas.meson.org (192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 21 Jul 2009 00:57:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4A654AA8.2050501@kli.org> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:57:12 -0400 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Philosophical differences. References: <126025.43169.qm@web50408.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20090720132908.GJ26708@nvg.org> <12d58c160907201322m3821677bpa3199f90f556b761@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <12d58c160907201322m3821677bpa3199f90f556b761@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 15782 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mark@kli.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Regarding the various {nitcu} for sleepy/hungry/thirsty/horny/etc/etc. I've been thinking about this a bit whilst discussing it with Lindar on IRC. You can drive yourself nuts slicing up this semantic pie (or any one, for that matter). On one hand, why should we have separate gismu for all of these? They all reflect the same basic concept: physical need. So we can conflate all these, and that will be so much more consistent, right? On the other hand, they are all so very *different*, how can we even consider conflating them? How can we even express them with just {nitcu} or {djica}? Hunger and thirst are will-controlled. It is possible to starve yourself to death, and simply refuse to eat/drink (people have done it). And if there's no food around, your body won't go trying to eat sand or rocks against your will. But air-hunger is different: even if there's no air around, your body will sooner or later take the decision out of your hands and try to breathe, even if it means flooding your lungs with water. Lindar mentioned that sleepiness is on a smaller scale than "need"... When I'm driving down the highway straining to keep my eyes open, knowing full well that falling asleep behind the wheel can be fatal, there is nothing small or mild whatsoever about needing to sleep. That's another one where the body will take the decision out of your hands after a while. Sleep is also different in that hunger/thirst/air-hunger all require something that might or might not be available in the world; sleep doesn't. Compare also the needs to urinate/defecate. All those require from the world is space (at least some tiny bit of which is usually available), and your body will also take care of these whether or not you want to, if it goes on long enough. Hunger and thirst don't build monotonically; air-hunger does... Libido is so much more complex than mere hunger or thirst, it hardly bears comparing. cf also the "need" to scratch an itch, or to cough or sneeze... And so on... My point in arguing with Lindar is not that Lindar is wrong, but rather that Lindar is not right. That is to say, there are *so many* ways of looking at just about any semantic range like this, is it really sensible to say that Lojban shouldn't do it *this* way but must do it *that* way because that one is "right"? Obviously the standard has to pick *some* way, and then all alternate views will perforce have to make use of lujvo, etc., and we can probably agree that some ways of looking at some things are fairly uncontroversially worse than most, but it's a _very_ tough sell, as I see it, that these gismu (or others being discussed) are actually "broken." There are just too many "right" ways. ~mark To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.