[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [jbovlaste] [eitanp32@gmail.com: {banro} gets default sense of "grow"; conflicting with some lujvo]



I'm not sure between 1 and 2. The fact that the definition uses the word "form" seems to make #1 seem pertinent, but on the other hand the examples that we've noted seem to be more about {makcu binxo} than {barda zenba}. Of course in many, many species {makcu binxo} involves {barda zenba}. So perhaps {banro} is {barda zenba} with a subtext of {makcu binxo}. The problem with this is "what exactly is banro2", and that again ties into my objection to the notion of concrete binxo2. (Namely, that an object does not become a different object, it merely changes in properties. Saying {mi binxo lo cinki} should by a transparency argument be the same as {lo cinki cu binxo lo cinki}.)

mi'e la latro'a mu'o .i ta'o lo nu zo latro'a cmene mi do cu zmadu lo nu lo glico cu cmene mi do kei lo ni mi nelci ce'u

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Eitan Postavsky <eitanp32@gmail.com> wrote:
I discern three opinions on this apparent conflict between {banro} and {brabi'o}:
1. They're different: roughly speaking, {banro} is about the beginning and ending /forms/, while {brabi'o} is about the beginning and ending /sizes/.
2. {brabi'o} is superfluous; delete it.
3. {brabi'o} is superfluous; restrict {banro} so that {brabi'o} not superfluous.

My respective responses (straw man much?):
1. The gismu list is very clear that {banro} involves an increase in some sense. ke'u it's not just changing from one form into another. {barda} (and {zenba}) captures quite well "increase in some sense", so...
2. I concur. Ian Johnson said it well (though I guess he later defected to 1?): "Seems to me that {banro} is {barda zenba}, with all the possible vagueness that barda2/barda3 introduce, and that {brabi'o} is superfluous."
3. That's crazy. I'll talk to la pier directly. li'a you're suggesting that we take {banro} to be restricted to increases resulting from life. Your velji'i is either independent of {brabi'o}, or dependent on it; that is, either {brabi'o} figures somewhere in your reasoning, or it figures nowhere in your reasoning. If it is independent, then basically you're interpreting the gismu list's definition of {banro} to be restricted to increases resulting from life; the word "life" figures nowhere in there, so clearly that is not the case. Therefore, your velji'i is dependent on {brabi'o}. So basically, because {brabi'o} is so similar to {banro}, you want to restrict {banro} so that it's not so similar. But the gismu list is /known/ to be redundant; that is, it is known that, for many a gismu G, you can construct a lujvo L out of gismu other than G so that L is so similar to G. By your reasoning, for each such G and L, we ought to narrow G so it's not so similar to L. That's absurd. By exhaustion, I conclude that your reasoning is absurd (or "crazy"). (Likely you'll disagree with the two parts of this paragraph that are labeled with the word "basically".)

_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste


_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste