[lojban] Re: antiblotation (was: RE: taksi

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Lojbab:
> At 01:58 PM 5/28/03 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> >filip:
> > > On 28 May 2003 at 0:43, jjllambias2000 wrote:
> > >
> > > > The place structure for taksi is perhaps the least obvious of the
> > > > three, but almost certainly I would bet it has the passengers/cargo in
> > > > x2 
> > >
> > > Probably also a place for area of operation (most taxis I know operate
> > > only in one city, or in a defined rural area)
> > >
> > > Not so sure about driver or fare
> >
> >For any place structure:
> >
> >Step 1 
> >Draw up a list of candidate places. There will be infinitely many
> >to select from, but make sure they include those things that might
> >be difficult to express by means of other locutions 
> >
> >Step 2 
> >For each candidate place, check whether you really want to define (e.g.)
> >taksi so that something is not a taksi if there is no passenger, or
> >no area of operation, or no driver, or no fare. Discard any candidates
> >that are thus inessential. This avoids making the brivla mean something
> >other than what was intended 
> 
> Slight caveat here:  remember that Lojban predicates are "tenseless" 

Jimc, who restated in improved form what I said, makes a similar
point. However, asking "Is this a taxi/taksi" is no different from
asking "Are you a baby?", "Are you a university student?". Do
answer that, you have to add tense, yielding, say: "Is this a
taxi now?", "Are you a baby now?" Clearly you aren't a baby now;
you're an ex-baby. But is a taxicab sans passenger a taksi now, or
only an ex-taxi? So really I think my original point stands.
 
> Thus the question is not whether it is a marcrtaxi if it doesn't have a 
> passenger, or if it isn't currently driven, or if there is no fare being 
> charged.  The question is whether it is a marcrtaxi if it NEVER has those 
> things all at one time.  

The question is whether it is a marcrtaxi now if it doesn't have a
passenger now. One answer might be No. A second answer might be Yes
(regardless of whether it has ever contained a passenger). A third
answer might be "Iff it will have had a passenger", somewhat 
analogously to the way a haji is someone who has been to Mecca, 
regardless of where they happen to be now. (Another analogy is
baptism, where it would be useful to have one predicate meaning
"get baptized" and another meaning "has been baptized".)

> I think that a marcrtaxi must have at some time a 
> driver and passenger(s).  If there is no fare, then the word  encompasses 
> both taxi and chauffeur, which sounds more like something we would expect 
> of a lujvo than a fu'ivla.  A word specific to the English concept of taxi 
> probably needs a fare/payment place 

I can certainly see the sense of this view. English "taxi" would then
translate as "marcrtaksi zei marce", a lujvo with the fare place
got rid of, and only the vehicle place left. However, one could
not then hail that which is now a marcrtaksi, or wait for one,
for, of course, one waits for and hails a now-passengerless taxi.
Hence I would make "marcrtaksi" purely the vehicle, & hence hailable,
and use a lujvo "taxi-hire"/"taxi-travel" to add the fare, passenger
& other places. This is because on the whole I think it is better to 
use lujvo to add places than to subtract them.

--And.