Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Dec 31, 2007 3:44 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:Jorge Llambías wrote:At least that's the theory. In practice I think most people just use {skapi} even though {pilka} is wanted because {skapi} has keyword "skin" and {pilka} has keyword "crust".More importantly, pilka might be used for a bread crust, but I don't think it is skapi except in a metaphorical sense. I'm not certain about an orange peel or an eggshell - both are clearly pilka.That's the distinction bret mentioned, but is skapi just the pilka of an animal, or does it have to be the *extracted* (and processed?) pilka from an animal?
I don't think I have thought of skapi as necessarily detached, though it can be. But I do think of it as being a distinct organ/body part of an animal with all the range of functions applicable to that organ, which are more than mere protection. By contrast, a pilka could be found on non-living things and on living things covers a broader range of concept, probably including both skapi and calku and korka perhaps some things which are none of the above (a chrysalis perhaps?).
If actual usage has limited skapi's meaning to that of the material derived from the body organ of a (hopefully dead) animal, I could probably live with it. But Nora and I both think that the place structure wording does not exclude the body part/pilka role.
There probably could have been other ways to divide the semantic space, to reduce the number of gismu by one or two, with pilka defining the function, skapi the material, and jdari eliminating the need for calku, but we certainly weren't being reductionist at that point. JCB had two words pelpi and skapi (which confusingly are our skapi and pilka, respectively), and I don't think his definitions were any clearer. In the interest of eventual reconciliation, we were trying NOT to drop a gismu unless it clearly belonged in lujvo or borrowings (like "billiards").
lojbab