[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lo gunma nabmi
>There is already a simple way to talk about water molecules, copper atoms,
>rice grains, sand grains, etc. Those are: jausle, tuksle, risysle, cansle.
>
>If you want to refer to a mass of those, then {loi jausle}, {loi tuksle},
>{loi risysle}, {loi cansle}.
>
Sure, but I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the
definitions of some concepts in the dictionary seem inconsistent or
arbitrary with regard to mass description. Some use discrete definitions;
some use continuous.
Again, look at beans & rice:
*bean, x1 is a |/pea/leguminous seed from plant [legume] x2 /:/ /=/ dembi (deb)
*rice, x1 is a quantity of | [a type of grain] of strain/cultivar x2 /:/
/=/ rismi (ris)
Why should /dembi/ be thought of as individuals and /rismi/ thought of as
groups? Note that in English the predicate /beans/, as a food, is
customarily pluralized. Sometimes we use the singular, when talking about a
specific instance of Mr. Bean. In English rice implies a group. /Rices/
implies a group of individual cultivars or varieties of rice. Ain't English
fun? Lets make lojban a little less "fun."
>From the discussion about trobriand islander masses I inferred (perhaps
mistakenly) that the particular mass designation of /ractu/ depends on the
preceding cmavo:
le la lo, lei, loi etc. This seems reasonable. I interpret the differences
between dembo & rismi in the provisional dictionary as unintentional
lexicographical consequences of lojban to English translation. Thus the
english definition of dembi might be more accurately given as:
*bean, x1 is at least one or is a quantify of |/pea/leguminous seed from
plant [legume] x2 /:/ /=/ dembi (deb)
*rice, x1 is at least one or is a quantity of | [a type of grain] of
strain/cultivar x2 /:/ /=/ rismi (ris)
(Some set theorist is probably going to say that they should be defined as
zero or more rice grains or zero or more beans! That might be better,
including the empty set IS more general...)
*rabbit, x1 is a |/hare/[doe] of species/breed x2 /:/ /=/ ractu
For djacu, it makes sense to me to me to define the concept broadly enough
to include everything down to 1 molecule of water. It would not make sense
to me to bring things down to the level of the constituent atoms of water
or their constituent neutrons/protons/quarks/superstrings, as the essential
properties of water we experience in everyday life are lost once you break
up the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen or into smaller units.
Just as the protON, neutrON, and electrON are the elementary consituents of
matter, the elementary constituent of society is of course the persON :-)
Notice how person, human, and people all map to /prenu/ (Seems reasonable)
This suggests that the cmavo determine whether we mean a group or an
individual. Notice that /ninmu/ & /nanmu/ explicitly in their definition
acknowledge group or individual meanings!
*people (person(s)), x1 is a person/| (noun) [not necessarily human]; x1
displays personality/a persona /:/ /=/ prenu (pre)
*person, x1 is a |/people (noun) [not necessarily human]; x1 displays
personality/a persona /:/ /=/ prenu (pre)
*human (person not necessarily |), x1 is a person/people (noun) [not
necessarily |]; x1 displays personality/a persona /:/ /=/ prenu (pre)
&human, x1 of remna
*human, x1 is a |/| being/man (non-specific gender-free sense);
(adjective:) x1 is | /:/ /=/ remna (rem re'a)
*humanoid (female), x1 is a woman/women; x1 is a female | person [not
necessarily adult] /:/ [word dispreferred in metaphor/example as sexist;
(use remna or prenu)] /=/ ninmu (nim ni'u)
*humanoid (male), x1 is a man/men; x1 is a male | person [not necessarily
adult] /:/ [word dispreferred in metaphor/example as sexist; (use remna or
prenu)] /=/ nanmu (nau)
*humanoid (mythical creature), x1 is a
fairy/elf/gnome/brownie/pixie/goblin/kobold [mythical |] of mythos/religion
x2 /:/ [also orc, giant, demon or devil (when |-form is presumed by the
mythos/religion), bugbear, bogeyman]; (cf. ranmi, especially for non-|
creatures of myth) /=/ crida (rid)
>> I noticed this in trying to understand jorge's objections to my use of
>> lei djacu
>> He pointed out this could mean something other than
>> /a bunch of molecules of water/
>> which is what I want it to mean. It could mean
>> /a bunch of raindrops/
>> for example. (Apparently jorge thinks in lojban!)
>
>Not yet!
>
>> I would suggest that one
>> or more raindrops be described in lojban as
>> le litki bratu
>
>or also {le djacu dirgo}.
good point. a water drop is not necessarily raining...
>
>> and that
>> lei djacu
>> be reserved for water considered as discrete molecules of H2O.
>
>But that is not as useful a concept as the everyday concept of
>water. If you say {ta djacu} with your definition, you'd be saying
>"that is a water molecule".
I disagree. "Useful" to me requires that it be accurate! Talking about
water as an infinitesimally divisible mass is not accurate, at least as far
as science can tell us. ta djacu means "there is one or more water
molecules, exact meaning determined by context" That definition includes
BOTH our meanings, which can be distinguished by cmavo or listener
questioning.
>That may be useful when using an electron
>microscope, but not most of the time for most people. When you do
>want to say that, you can say {ta djacu selci}, or, if you don't
>like so many syllables, then {ta jausle}.
If I'm doing scanning-tunneling microscopy then it might mean one molecule.
But if I'm thirstily asking my wife for a drink I mean "that extremely
large number of water molecules you have there." Context is critical in
human to human communication.
I think the (minor) inconsistencies in the dictionary suggest you are
putting far too much weight on the literal english used to translate the
lojban predicate /djacu/ into English. I agree that the definition is
confusing. But by analogy to other predicates, it seems inescapable that
the unmodified predicate djacu must mean "one or more (possibly many more!)
molecules or a quantity of water" One form of context could be inclusion of
units (moles, grams, milliliters) as a selbri as part of the definition.
And I haven't even begun to talk about isotopes, contaminants, temperature,
ambient & vapor pressure etc. All this complexity is not necessary in every
discourse, but IMHO it ought to be built into the structure of the
predicate, available for use when the cmavo tease out *exactly* what flavor
of djacu the speaker intends.
>
>> IMHO the
>> definitions of concepts which can commonly be considered discretely or
>> continuously ought to be adjusted to allow for either continuous or
>> discrete use with lei or loi.
>
>But lei/loi already makes a different distinction. In fact, you can
>use {lei} as you propose, because {lei djacu} is "the mass of those
>I have in mind that I'm calling quantities of water", and you can think
>of the quantities as being molecules. The question is whether anyone
>who listens will understand your intent. If the context makes it clear
>that you are talking about molecules then there's no problem.
>
This is very interesting to me. Jorge has clarified what the problem is.
(As he often does.) Jorge & I apparently interpret the meaning of /djacu/
in the dictionary differently. Now the question is (shades of interprative
literature class 301!) "What did the author (lojbab?) intend?"
Or, since the dictionary has not yet been published, what do others think
/djacu/ ought best mean? The atomic theory seems rather well accepted.
Shouldn't we build its contexts into the elementary structure of the
language? Shouldn't speakers who want to use ancient, more narrow &
inaccurate concepts of matter have to blurt out an extra bridi or invent a
new word to describe "infinitesimally divisible water?" I have no objection
to someone else doing this. I'm partial to the atomic view of matter,
myself. :-)
-Stivn
Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria
email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax: 309/671-8413