[lojban-beginners] Re: tanru/lujvo for [name] type of thing?

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ian cusku di'e

> After spending half a day on thinking about this definition (damn, I should 
> rather work on my thesis lol), I came up with:
>
> lu luman zei nunzga li'u cu bridi
> 	le si'o gasnu le logji telsei be da bei de be'o
> 		gi'e snigau fi da kei
> 	le zgana se zukte ku
> 		ce'o le sniselgau be fi da ku
> 		ce'o le nu'o sniselgau be fi de ku
> 		ce'o le zgana poi ciste fi lo luman zei nunzga

These words are always confusing, but the way I understand it
the x1 of bridi is not (typically) a single word: it is either
a full proposition or a full sentence. (It is defined as a text
but often used, in English, as "proposition".) The x2 of bridi
(the "selbri") is used (at least in English) to refer to the text
of the nucleus of the sentence. So we say for example that
in the bridi "mi klama le zarci", "klama" is the selbri and
"mi" and "le zarci" are the terbri. In English we often
treat every argument of {bridi} as text. The gi'uste definition
marks only x1 as text. When you talk of "le zgana se zukte" in
the definition, presumably you don't have a particular observation
in mind, and the same goes for the other arguments.

Anyway, I think I understand what you mean even though
I don't think using {bridi} like that works for a formal
definition. Also, do you really need the x3 place?

> With this definition I can then say e.g. (if I have not screwed up):
>
> .i brode cei luman zei nunzga
>
> .i zo censa selbo'e fi le skeci'e na.e le lijdyci'e po'e
> (holy vs. (unholy or secular or whatever) is a difference that science is 
> blind to and religion alone can make)

I suppose you mean {fo} rather than {fi}.

What would go in x3? "Unholy"? That sounds wrong. "Neither
holy nor unholy"?

Couldn't we just say:

 le ka censa cu se zgana fi le skaci'e na.e le lijdyci'e
 Holyness is observed not by means of science but of religion.

I'm not sure why you want the observation act as one of
the places in your basic predicate, and I'm not sure I
understand what goes in the place for the "non-distiguished".

> .i la saske cu velbo'e zo jetnu po'o enai zo melbi
> (science is a system that marks things as being "true" and not as 
> "beautiful")

Would x3 be zo jitfa?

Another way of saying it might be:

la saske cu pajni le du'u xukau jetnu enai le du'u xukau melbi
Science determines whether something is true, not whether it is
beautiful.

> .i la brode ganlo ciste goi ko'a cu velbo'e da poi ko'a ka'e velbo'e ke'a 
> ku'o de poi ko'a na ka'e velbo'e ke'a .ijanai ko'a velbo'e lu'e ko'a
>
> (The operationally closed system observes the difference of observations it 
> can make vs. those it can not make. If it can't do that It can't refer to 
> itself)

Shouldn't you have {le terfrica be da poi ... bei de poi ...}
in the x2? In other words, in a closed system the difference
between observables and non-observables is observable.

Otherwise you are saying that closed systems observe what
they observe against what they don't observe, but every system
supposedly does that, doesn't it? I may be misunderstanding
your x3.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963