Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Message-ID: <534F03C0.4090205@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:27:12 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com, bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: [bpfk] Re: [lojban] Several "by standard" places are strange.
References: <qcpc1n01t56Cr6M01cpddU>
In-Reply-To: <qcpc1n01t56Cr6M01cpddU>
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 5188

On 4/16/2014 8:49 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> By looking at "by standard" places I noticed some of them that probably
> should have been "in property" places.

Since I added them, I will attempt to explain.  I can't say that this is 
the reason for all of them, but was the motivation for adding many 
standard places.

"by standard" implies that there might be a difference in truth-value 
based on a subjective choice of standard.

The classic example is "xamgu" (good) vs "xlali" (bad).  By some 
(subjective, or subjectively chosen) standards, x1 might be considered 
"good", while in others it might be "not-so-good" or even "bad".  This 
does not depend on any particular property or quality as I understand 
it, but it does depend on what standard I am using to judge "goodness".

As another example, someone might be obese by the standard of 
body-mass-index >30 (which is a nominally objective measurement, but the 
choice of that as a standard is subjective over other possible 
standards.  BMI wasn't always used to define "obese" and some think it 
is a poor standard:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/million-meals/201301/the-perils-bmi-screening
).  I don't see any relevant "property".

That stated, one can argue that standards should be expressed as 
property abstractions, which might render the question moot.


> E.g. I'm sure that juxre2 is "in property" like {mi juxre lo ka cadzu}.
> However, I'm not sure about nanla3, nixli3, verba3.

those are standards of maturity.  If we had not considered the words to 
be fundamental concepts, they could all be compounds of makcu, which 
does depend on a property and not a standard.  But that wasn't the basis 
for the choice of place structures.  In these cases, we realizeded that 
the age at which one is no longer considered a boy/girl/child is 
culturally dependent according to a cultural standard, in addition to be 
subjective within that culture.  There are rites of passage for 
adulthood in some cultures.  Other standards include age, and puberty. 
I know Russian has a separate word for "girl" vs "woman" which by my 
understanding is based neither on puberty or the age of legal adulthood 
(IIRC a "girl" becomes a "woman" at age 16, possibly at one time the age 
of marriageability). At the other end of the range, different cultures 
attach mutually exclusive standards to "infant" as distinguished from 
"child" (but boy and girl might be usable for both).

Using these roots in compounds can introduce other complications.  Can a 
teenager be considered a "young adult"?  That is a standards question 
and not a property one.

I can't take the time now to look at each of those below, but I know 
that epistemology was a problematic place for truth/falsity.  IIRC, we 
were trying to keep jetnu apart from djuno (which needs an epistemology 
place), but also apart from fatci, which is supposed to be independent 
of epistemology.

lojbab


> lanzu3 also uses "by standard" gloss which is quite different from most
> other "by standard" places so may be a better gloss needed to avoid
> confusion?
>
> The following is the list of gismu that seem problematic to me:
> *gismu | current definition | proposed definition*
> clira | x1 is early by standard x2 | x1 is early in property x2 (ka)
> jetnu | x1 is true by standard x2 | x1 is false by epistemology x2
> jitfa | x1 is false by standard or epistemology x2 | x1 is false by
> epistemology x2
> juxre | x1 is clumsy by standard x2 | x1 is clumsy in x2 (ka)
> kanro | x1 is healthy or well by standard x2 | x1 is healthy or well in
> property x2
> lanzu | x1 is a family including x2 bonded by standard x3 ???
> lerci | x1 is late by standard x2 | x1 is late in property x2 (ka)
> mapti | x1 is compatible with or matches x2 by standard x3 |  in
> property x3 (ka)
> mintu | x1 is identical to x2 by standard x3 |  in property x3 (ka)
> nanla | x1 is a boy of age x2 immature by standard x3 | in property x3 (ka)
> nixli | x1 is a girl of age x2 immature by standard x3 | in property x3 (ka)
> nobli | x1 is noble by standard x2 | in property x2 (ka)
> palci | x1 is wicked or evil by standard x2 | in property x2 (ka)
> plana | x1 is fat or obese by standard x2 | in property x2 (ka)
> racli | x1 is rational or sane by standard x2 | in property x2 (ka)
> smaji | x1 is quiet at observation point x2 by standard x3 | in property
> x3 (ka)
> tilju | x1 is heavy or massive by standard x2 | in property x2 (ka)
> verba | x1 is a child aged x2 immature by standard x3 | in property x3 (ka)
> vrude | x1 is virtuous by standard x2 | in property x2 (ka)
> xadba | x1 is half of x2 by standard x3 | in property x3 (ka)
> xamgu | x1 is good for x2 by standard x3 | in property x3 (ka)
> xlali | x1 is bad for x2 by standard x3 | in property x3 (ka)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.