[jbovlaste] Re: the common cold and the flu

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2009/10/30 Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>:
> On Friday 30 October 2009 13:43:13 komfo,amonan wrote:
>> You're coining two words for one concept, unless I'm missing something.
>> Another approach would be to leave the place structure of {bilma} in place
>> for its derived fu'ivla. Hence, {lo tolvutu} would be the sufferer & {lo te
>> tolvutu} would be the disease.
>
> I don't see a need for x3 of "bilma" in a word for "has <a specific> disease".
> x3 is the disease, which is specified, so I leave it off.

I agree.

We might also consider "kenra", with the place structure:
 x1 is a cancer [malignant disease] in x2
The x2 is effectively the patient. So it might make sense if also
"tolvutu" had the x1 for the disease and a non-x1 for the patient:
 x1 is rabies with symptoms x2 present in organism/patient x3
Thus having all the places from "bilma".


> As to having two
> words, we have the same in English: "rabies" and "rabid", "diabetes"
> and "diabetic", and so on.

Right. But they more or less give us such clues as "-id" and "-ic"
about what they mean (the patient or the disease); "tolvutu" and
"fluenza" give none (at least within the paradigm of the Lojban
morphology). I suggest we specify them by means of prefix or tanru:
bi'arntolvutu, tolvutu bilma, bi'arnfluenza, fluenza bilma. Note that
there is no gismu whose x1 is the generic "disease" and that it would
be unusual and cumbersome if not ungrammatical to use multiple
prefixes to create "terbi'arntolvutu" for "rabies". If we could have
"tolvutu" for the disease and "bi'arntolvutu" for the patient, that in
my opinion would be better. In fact, if we used the above place
structure for "tolvutu" (its x3 being the patient), then just SE-ing
it would solve the issue in a more straightforward way: tolvutu
(rabies), te tolvutu (rabid).


mu'o mi'e tijlan