DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition         :references;        b=RaAp8hrSKB1qjZWH/IepFaRMIL0mdmb8uDbo1pQ//boKzUgqS4/wj0CKCX+Om/yc/Y         PsDy7wsYvdK8CyornVVlWVPWCg6fpf59ahBvdFOTtwBHilvTMHKy1AFMYmi8ypvprALM         Z5dvXI/VD4f+JUoenZdW56oH/eXV+lpib7nBA=
Message-ID: <96f789a60807021153y5d90875fwb5fa0d7e38f67231@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:53:09 -0400
From: "Michael Turniansky" <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: tanru order
In-Reply-To: <925d17560807021042q167d8f8ao97997df117acc771@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <737b61f30806281910q2e8c38e1x1efdd2b8e4ef87ab@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560806290645l23118bbeyaa71d7dfa0b13bdb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <737b61f30806290816t5663ce55s341e7eb9f3762986@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560806290845n1b2a591vfa042cb4bb7a5f7a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <96f789a60807010911t711b869et30c635b37ab35e66@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560807011105i4e5d0d6bsaca750e3f13bd347@mail.gmail.com>
	 <96f789a60807020854l1ceb2468hdc9212d52261c699@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560807021042q167d8f8ao97997df117acc771@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1988

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> It's an established rule that the
>> tanru as a whole may refer to things that are not really in either
>> category of the compononent gismu (although you would be at great risk
>> of loss of intelligibility),
>
> What would be an example where a tanru does not refer to something
> in the category of the tertau?
>
    All these from the end of section 15 in chapter 5, for example
(again, *I* wouldn't use these (except possibly in limited
circumstances translating from those languages, and probably not
without explanation), but they provide an example of what I'm talking
about):

tumla vacri  land air (Fin = world)
moklu stedu mouth head (Aba = face)
sudysrasu cunmi hay millet (Qab = agriculture)
djacu dertu water earth (Chi = climate)


>>  (BTW, I notice the refgram itself (which I know you are reflexively
>> iconoclastic towards, no matter what it says), in chapter 5, ex. 4.1
>> uses "mutce bo barda")
>
> I have no objection to {mutce vajni}, in fact I use such forms all the time.
> My only objection is to saying that it is "better" than {vajni mutce}. They
> are either both equally good or, by a criterion of simplicity, {vajni mutce}
> is better. If one is to argue that {mutce vajni} is better, then I think one
> should explain by what criterion it is better.
>

  Oh, well, if you have no objection to mutce vajni, just prefer the
other, then I don't really have any more  argument with you. I've
already laid out why I think why mutce/zmadu/etc. as seltau is
preferential (because of the greater specificity of the tertau), so we
can agree to disagree.  BTW, while lojban doesn't really have any
comparison within the gismu, thus forcing the use of mutce, etc. it
wasn't (isn't?) that way in Loglan, wherein blanu meant "X1 is bluer
than X2", broda meant "X1 is bigger than X2", etc..

                  --gejyspa