Re: gismu list proposals, responses

[cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan)]

> jalra: for "cockroach" read "cockroach/termite"
> jalra: rationale: such are the facts; surprise!
>  
> I checked, and not really [...]

[text omitted]

> I made a change to include all of the above in jalra, but
> wasn't too happy about it.  Lojban gismu are supposed to represent
> popular knowledge as well as scientific categorization.  Roaches are a
> particular kind of pest, and the broader jalra means that we need a
> lujvo for that previously clear concept.

Note that there is a folk-taxonomic similarity as well: both are house
pests.

> I am convinced primarily
> because we don't have gismu for locust/grasshopper, which are probably
> equally important in some cultures.
>  
> But this makes me want to look at the remining insects and make sure
> they are all covered somehow in a subcategory if they are commonly
> recognized enough to be talked about.  Specific problem I see:  beetles
> and true 'bugs'.

I will try to investigate a bit, and maybe propose a new gismu if needed.
Beetles are certainly a problem:

    THEOLOGIAN:  What can we deduce about God from his creation?
    J.B.S. HALDANE [biologist and Marxist]: An inordinate fondness for beetles.

> Semi-related issue is a word for clam/oyster/shellfish and snail.  Our broad
> definition of shell isn't especially useful for animal life that is often
> distinguished by the shell.

Good point.  I'll look into this too.

> kagni: interchange x2 and x3 places
> kagni: rationale: purpose more useful than charterer?
>  
> Possibly, but not necessarily:  the megacorporations like the Japanese
> have are better identified by nationality of charter than by a specific
> purpose, and indeed most discussion of companies in an international
> environment will probably have the counortant.  In
> general, I think that tools and apparati are going to tend to have the
> most complex place structures, and they probably should.

Your rationale got garbled, but I don't much care anyway.

> salta: "x1 is a quantity of..." can't be mass; "set ext." is not used
> salta: for "x1 (mass)" read "x1"; for "x2 (set ext.)" read "x2"
> sanso: for "x3 (set ext.)" read "x3"
>  
> Don't understand - these are not the only occurances of set. ext. vs.
> mass for components of a mixture, and I don't see what is distinct about
> them.  Among the things we were trying to cover with this mass/set
> extent, is the possibility of an incomplete specification of
> ingredients.  The wording should be consistent among all of them.

I've forgotten what I was getting at here.

> skoto: delete "(metaphor: Gaelic/Celtic)"
> skoto: rationale: use le'avla for "Gaelic" (includes Eire) and "Celtic" (includes Wales, Brittany, etc.)
>  
> Disagree.  We want the broader meaning, if necessary at the expense of
> the narrower one; cf. your comment on polno.  Scotland really didn't
> meet the criteria, but JCB had it as a prim.  Note also that per my
> dictionary, Gaelic non-technically refers to highland Scottish unless
> specifically prefixed by "Irish".  Now, whether extending Gaelic to
> Celtic is appropriate, I'm not sure.  I would not have qualms with
> Irish = west-skoto Scottish = north-skoto Welsh = south-skoto
> Brittany = fraso-skoto

Somehow this one bothers me a lot more than polno for Micronesia or Melanesia,
perhaps only because of English-language parochialism.  But if it's going to
mean "Gaelic" (which is a pretty vague term), then I would argue for a change
in keyword even if the gismu is left alone.

> zgike: delete "performed by x3"
> zgike: rationale: music need not be performed; use cusku or tigni
>  
> xatsi, xexso, petso, femti: change "1x10**" to "1E" or "1e"

This one is obsolete: ignore it.  It resulted from a bug in early versions
of the English-order algorithm.  (Those are the only gismu with a "*"
character in the part of the place structure outside parentheses.)

> This probably also means that the cf. abbrevaiation isn't
> as appropriate as q.v. or some other latinate that I  don't know very well.

"cf." just means "compare", so is appropriate wherever a contrast of whatever
sort is being drawn.  "q.v." means "quod vide" = "which see" and is 
appropriate when a cross reference appears incidentally in text, the equivalent
of bold face or small caps.  It is no longer used in dictionaries.

-- 
John Cowan	cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban.