more gismu comments from Jorge

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

>Why
>does {xamgu} have a standard but {xlali} doesn't?

Why does Jorge have a bad gismu list?  Mine has an x3 standard for both.

>  Why does {xanka} have
>"under conditions" but {gleki} doesn't?

This is the best of your 4 critiques this time %^)

It seems less obvious and more important in the case of xanka that the
conditions under which one might feel the emotion are distinct from the
conditions involved in the event about which one feels the emotion (i.e.
the same place inside the sumti clause)

Perhaps my understanding of happiness (which became embedded in Lojban)
is that it can be unconditional, whereas anxiety is conditional.

>Why does {curmi} have "under conditions" but not {gasnu}?

curmi: like xanka, the conditions tend to relate to the x1's state of mind,
while conditions might also be found inside the sumti clause being permitted,
that are unrelated to the state of mind.

Why should gasnu?  You either ARE an agent, or you are NOT.  I don't see
much basis for this comparison.

>Why does {cpedu} have "in manner" but {dunda} doesn't?

One is a predominantly physical action - and it is the action that makes
it "dunda".  "cpedu" involves a mental state on the part of the
requestor, being communicated to the recipient.  It thus is far more
akin to cusku, in that the medium of requesting (which need not be
linguistic) has significant effect on whether the request is understood
as such.

Again, it seems like you are comparing plise and narju (a contrast that
makes much more sense in Lojban than in English, since narju is not
necessarily a fruit) %^)

I touch on a related argument in another post responding to And on fuzzy
categories.

Later in the thread, Dylan:
>Do you think we could organize a rebellion :-)?  (No, I'm not really
>proposing another split.  I am half-seriously contemplating listing my
>own versions of various gismu with texts I write.)

Not funny.  If people do not accept the language standard before it is
promulgated, it will probably never be promulgated. i.e.  IFF I publish
a dictionary, then at the time of publishing and for a while thereafter,
there will be a baseline.  Only when the community is large enough and
stable enough (which will probably not happen before there is a
dictionary) will it be possible to trust natural linguistic processes.
Under the latter, individual "revolts", or misuses of a word, either
intentionally or erroneously, tend not to make changes in the language.
Natural linguistic change tends to be a more spontaneous process.

It is only willingness to accept a prescription until the language
becomes stable that gives any constructed language a chance to achieve
any durability without splintering into individual dialects.

LLG would probably not publish texts with non-standard place structures.
(This doesn't stop others from publishing their own texts, or even their
own dictionary or grammar - we aren't JCB, and you are welcome to do so
- but we hope you will not publish in contradiction to our
prescription.)

>But that's too cumbersome, and we can't have each user using their own
>version of the language.  I prefer that they be gradually forgotten by
>the collective memory...  :)

This is the preferred approach.  Again not funny.  If people gradually
forget a place, then at some uncertain point (fuzzy logic here %^) it
will cease to be part of the place structure.

lojbab