[lojban-beginners] Re: gusni

[Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:14:04AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> It does feel like an awkward x1 place. After all, what is the 'energy'
> of light? 'Light' itself of course, light IS energy. So probably the
> best way to fill the x1 is with 'lo gusni' (as in: "lo gusni cu gusni
> lo mi flira" - the light shines on my face) but that seems ridiculous.

It does indeed. That is why we would most often elide the x1, since there is no reason to specify it:

   gusni lo mi flira

> We can fill the x1 with properties of the light, which has been done so
> far (lo kandi, lo xunre), but they're not the energy itself, there
> indeed just properties.

Yes, they are the energy itself. "lo kandi" is something that is dim, not dimness itself. "lo xunre" is something that is red, not redness itself.

> [...] Maybe "lo selnavni cu ga'u gusni mi lo tubnu" neon from above illumines me from tubes (in which I'm not sure whether neon isn't also a property)

("se navni" is a type of gas, which is an abstraction and not a thing, but that is a different point.)

"lo navni cu ga'u gusni mi lo tubnu" doesn't work either, because in actuality neon emits light, but in this example you are asserting that it _is_ light.

> Maybe we're talking about wavelenghts here.

Not really. We're talking about a relationship between light, the thing that is illuminated/shone upon by the light, and the thing that produces the light.

-- 
Arnt Richard Johansen                                http://arj.nvg.org/
Hvis jeg *vil* skrive til *den* plassen i minnet, så *skal* jeg skrive
til *den* plassen i minnet. Det er derfor jeg foretrekker assembler.
                                                  -- Ingulf Helland