plipe

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

> > plipe was always a pain
> > because its English and other language equivalents tend to be used for
> > both jumping/springing up jumping over, and jumping from/to. the
> > specificity of the place structure was the best way we could think of to
> > clarify the core meaning and exclude those things we did not think fit
> > the core concept (or force them to be lujvo).
>
>I'm still a little uncertain here.  Which meanings did you want to
>exclude with {plipe}?

The current place structure is:

<x1 (agent/object) leaps/jumps/springs/bounds to x2 from x3

But when something "jumps/springs out at you", it may be a
jack-in-the-box which never leaves the ground.  And when you jump
striaght up in the air, e.g. a high jump, the logical place structure is
more

x1 jumps from x2 to altitude x3

because the landing place is not relevant, but the high point is.

Likewise, jump over/hurdle would need a place for the thing hurdled, and
possibly for the amount of clearance - both are more important than
starting and ending place, say, in a hurdles race.

And jumping in orbit or evenm in a non-gravity field could theoretically
be an endless motion - a route with only one endpoint, but we hope no
one ever does that kind of jump %^)

>But what about {farlu}?  Is there any way to say "free falling" other
>than {farlu befe zi'o bei zi'o}?  (In the sense "supported by nothing
>other than air", rather than the astronautical sense, "supported by
>nothing at all".)  Falling can be a much more protracted thing than
>jumping usually is.
>
>(OK, there's {se sarji le vacri}, but that seems to be somewhat
>different.)

Probably, as with that gravity-free leap, you would make a lujvo such as
farlylitru if you are not concerned about the endpoint(s).

Later:
>ba so'i lo xamgu danfu la lojbab cusku di'e
> > ...
> > 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.
>
>I think you've convinced me about the screw threads, {plipe} I'm
>ambivalent about, I disagree about {sfubu} but I can live with it...but
>these places of {farlu} (the source and destination) strike me as truly
>unnecessary and harmful.  It's not central to the concept of "falling"
>as I understand it; it unnecessarily restricts the meaning; and I don't
>know what else to call the more general concept.  (On the other hand, if
>the places are removed there are easy alternatives to specify source and
>destination; e.g., use the BAI cmavo {ka'a}.)

ka marji kei bapli litru/klama/muvdu/etc ?
mass-forced motion

Back to the first post
>(I get the impression that you're reluctant to make changes to the
>place structures at this point, but if I succeed in making a very
>convincing argument it might happen.  Is this right?)

Anything is possible %^)  Seriously, my answer to all proposals is this.
The dictionary is late.  Any change requires some amount of back-work.
Is the change important enough to justify that added time?

Changing exactly one place of one gismu might not be too bad, but once
the door is opened to one change, people invariably propose 10 more.
And then you have to decide where to draw the line.

It doesn't take much level of change to cause complete paralysis.  For
example, the long-winded and as yet undeciced semantics discussions of
the last year on "any", and kau/lambda, have caused enormous problems.
All of my and Nora's Lojban time for several months was caught up in
just trying to FOLLOW the discussion, because a change has major effects
in hhow we conceive and use the language.  It probably kept us from
starting up Lojban conversation sessions after we stopped for a couple
of months - they remain in suspension indefinitely because we lost one
local person (who moved from the area) in the interim.

I don't like to shut up discussion of change, but if people want changes
considered, then we have to follow the discussion, and in near real
time, not months later.  So, at some point I need to duck out again and
stop reading every message, (and any proposals go undecided and
therefore rejected) or the language never gets done.  (At one time Cowan
and Nick were follwoing things well enough that I could feel confident
that nothing substantive would go by.  Now I am having to count on pc
for the theory, and hope the issues fall out with a minimum of actually
deciding needing to be done.  It ain't happening these days.  And come
Logfest in August, I'm going to be called on the carpet my the attending
members for not having the dictionary done again.

I'll be happy to hear proposals on what to say to them (especially
since some of you reading this will be among them).

lojbab