jordi mas wrote: > Bruce Webber wrote:
Gismu capture relations. So we could say {klama} is a verb, but {klama} is also part of {le klama} (the traveller), {le se klama} (the destination), etc., which we call nouns. By capturing the relationship of "going", we gain all these additional uses of the same word.I like that "capture relations" metaphor. May I use it?
Certainly. I'm sure I didn't invent the metaphor, however. I tend to think in terms of structure (ordered relations) from my previous studies of General Semantics.
Yes. English verbs capture relations as well.We could say "went" is a verb, but it is also part of "the place I went to", "the one who went"which we call nouns. Not as terse as in lojban, but it manages to capture the relationship of "going" all the same.
You're right - English also expresses the relationship. But the subject-verb-object structure of English doesn't always work well. Lojban can express relationships more generally and thus doesn't have that limitation. To me it seems that English (and other European languages, I suppose) focus on nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., where Lojban focuses on the relationships between entities. It's a shift of perspective.
So equating sumti with nouns and gismu with verbs misses the focus on expressing relations.
I think elision (eliding?) might demonstrate the point. Consider fo ta cu klama fe le zdaniIf I haven't mangled the lojban, this could be translated as "that's the way home". (Experienced lojbanists please correct me.) Having a place structure for "come/go" allows me to express the idea this way, which is a different way of thinking, not just a re-naming of nouns and verbs.
mi'e brus.