More old response to Dylan

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

Continuing to respond to Dylan:
>Well, yes, but because of the implicit existential quantification of
>{da}, a {noi} clause ends up providing information crucial to
>restricting the quantification and understanding the sentence; e.g., {da
>noi nanmu cu te cimei} == "There are at least three men."

No - that is *exactly* what "poi" would do.

You have "Something (BTW a man/men) is a trio".


> > Well, there is the classic example {le nanmu cu ninmu}, then it
> > would be true that {le nanmu na nanmu}, which means that
> > {le nanmu cu nanmu} is false. We could argue ad nauseum about
> > ...
>
>Let me just make one point that may be new, without trying to start a
>new discussion:  gender and (physical) sex are hardly as dualistic as
>most people think they are (and as our culture constantly pushes on us).
>Consider transvestites, transsexuals, and hermaphrodites.  Because of
>those last, in particular, one might reasonably say {da cu nanmu je
>ninmu je nimnau}.

A transvestite is (normally) either a man or a woman, and hence is an
excellent case where one might say "le nanmu cu ninmu" or vice versa.  A
hermaphrodite is a nanmu joi ninmu and probably a "je" would not be as
effective since I think most hermaphrodites do not fully function as
either of the sexes.  A transexual is of a specific gender by genitalia
and a different gender by genetics, so the distinction is one of "by
standard", but whichever the standard, the transsexual is one or the
other not both.


> > In the case of klupe vs. dinko, it is always the case that a screw has
 thread   s,
> > annd it need not be the case that a dinko has a point per se (if it does,
 the
> > use of jesni might be in order to talk about it).
>
>(which also doesn't have a place for the point...)

Depends upon what aspect you are talking about - if you mean the TIP,
you wany jipno.  If you want the fact that the nail/fastener is pointed
(i.e. needlelike) you use jesni.  But I think the definition is such
that a distinct single point is not the essential aspect of dinko.  For
one thing it might be pointed at both ends.  And, in any event, the
nature of the point does not determine whether or how well it fastens
(it may affect how well it penetrates, but that isn't stated in the
definition of a dinko).  The nature of the screw threads and of the
shaft are both relevant to how a screw works, and how well it works.

> > There is also a little history in these object gismu.  At one point very
> > early on, we identified a clear semantic distinction, a hierarchy as it were
> > from tutci-cabra-minji-zukte.  Some of the place additions came from a
> > mistaken attempt to say that some gismu were necessarily subclasses of one
> > of these - e.g. a mruli is always a tutci etc. and it was for brevity that
 we
> > trasfered some places of tutci to mruli.
>
>Not sure what you mean.  Has {tutci} lost places since this time?  All
>the places of {tutci} seem to be covered in {mruli}.  ({to'o} What's
>the fourth terbridi of {mruli}?  The handle or an agent?)

Here are edited gismu entries for the foursome, and mruli
<tutci tci tool x1 is a tool/utensil/resource/instrument/implement used
<for doing x2; [form determines function]
<
<cabra x1 is apparatus/mechanism/device/equipment for
<function x2 controlled/[triggered] by x3 (agent)  [form determined
<by/from function; does not imply automated/automatic action - requires
<an external agent/trigger (a minji may be a zmiku cabra if it requires
<an external agent to trigger or control the functions that it performs
<automatically)]
<
<minji x1 is a machine for use/function x2; [automated apparatus, without
<direct function control] [also machinery/mechanism; a machine is
<initiated/triggered by an agent/force, but thereafter performs its
<function automatically; if self-directed, (a minji is an) entity (=
<zukte)]
<
<zukte x1 is a volitional entity employing means/taking action x2 for
<purpose/goal x3/to end x3; agentive cause with volition/purpose; also
<x3 objective, end]

<mruli x1 [tool] is a hammer for/hammers x2 [target] consisting of
<weight/head x3 propelled by x4

I think that put together, the four "tools" are contrastingly defined
fairly effectively to show the hierarchical concept.

Now note that for tutci, the form determines the function.  The only
places are the tool (which implictly has some kind of form) and the
function.  Note that a tool need not have a user/initiator/agent.

Now you look at mruli, and you see that the place structure is nothing
like that of tutci, nor like cabra.  The function is lenu mruli da - the
hammering of something.  There are two form places - the head that does
the hitting, and the means that propels that head to hit (which
generally involves a force plus a leverage "tool" - in the case of a
normal hammer, the leverage is the wielder's arm plus the handle.  In
the case of a rock used as a hammer, it may just be the wielder's arm.
In the case of a falling rock, hammering whatever it lands on, there is
no agent, and the propulsion is gravitational force with no leverage -
but it is still a mruli.  The form determined the function.  Most
hammers that you use as carpentry tools can be looked at as either tutci
or cabra - they are tutci if the focus is on the natural tendency for
things of that form to be useful for hammering.  They are cabra in that
the function of hammering dictated several elements of the design
independent of the mere presence of a head and a leveraged/propelling
force.

>(Hey, what about my other gripes (e.g., the motion selbri)?  Should I
>just ignore places I don't like in text I write?)

No.  You don't ignore them.  There must BE a value, even if it is not
convenient or useful or important to say what it is.  Thus in an
abstract sense, if there isn't a value for from or a to, it isn't farlu.
It is merely a motion propelled by gravitational force.