Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

[Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>]

Be careful, we are not speaking of the logical AND, but the fact that
an object inherits from two classes at the same time.   Even if you
are not an << Escape Landsomist philosopher >> or any other type of
illogical prig of the sort, I guess you can understand the logical
bases of Object-Oriented Programming, and understand that, if I
declare something to be both a Tool and a Toy, I have a Toy+Tool.

We should imho keep in mind we are talking not about syntax, nor pure
logic, but semantics.   The "+" notation I abusively use here does not
mean logical AND, nor arithmetic sum, it is a kind of abbreviation for
"mixing classes together".   And, if some thing was regarded by
society as both a Tool and a Toy, we would be right to call it both
names, and even perhaps both names at the same time.   Don't confuse
logic with semantics...

---

As my point about continua seems not to have been properly understood
(perhaps this is to some extent rather misleading)... let me first
give you two examples taken from a natlang :

1°) 新房, xīn​fáng​, means both "brand new house" AND "bridal chamber".
There's no difficulty in finding a continuum in this : a bridal
chamber is somewhat "used for the first time", so that there is a
vicinity in semantics.   Also, keep in mind that continuum just means
semantics are not discrete, it does not imply they are connected or
simply connected (I assume it is meaningful to use this rather
topological language)...

2°) 宣传画, xuān​chuán​huà​, is both "propaganda poster" AND "advertising
hoarding".  The continuum is quite clear here too, isn't it ?   And
why should it not be so ?    I DON'T MEAN propaganda AND advertising
ARE THE SAME THING, but only that you can draw a continuous line from
the former to the latter...

Of course, you could argue that 宣传画, xuān​chuán​huà​, is just
"(psychically imperative) (mediatic piece of information)".  This way
you have collapsed the two extremities of the continuous semantic line
into one single semantic point, that renders the idea of the whole
line.   But this is not always feasible.   Even if it were, some
information would be lost in the process, because "(psychically
imperative) (mediatic piece of information)" could also be some
frenetic tune, which it is not.  So you should say "(non musical
mediatic piece of information)", or rather, perhaps, "(visually iconic
piece of information)".   But then, that's not all, some information
is still lost, and then you should add some more correction, and so
on...   So that defining 宣传画, xuān​chuán​huà as { BOTH "propaganda
poster" AND "advertising hoarding" } is much more true, and even more
handy.

[These remind us of the algebraic process of factoring and expanding a
formula...  Don't they ?]

You should also keep in mind that for "pragmatic reasons" (indeed,
"historical reasons"), it is justified the Chinese use the same term
to refer to propaganda and advertising...   So, the fact that two
different notions are mixed up together, that they are INTRICATED, is
useful !  is practical !  is beneficial even to a logic-oriented mind
!   It is a way of conveying the historical idea that two "historical
events", or two "ideological concepts", or two "philosophical
notions", or whatever, share a priviledged relationship, and that it
is meaningful to tell it.

Suppose I am Lao-zi and I have a deep intuition that something like <<
the Way things are going on >> is AT THE SAME TIME the Rule they obey,
and the Means to achieve enlightenment (or the like), then wouldn't it
be a good move to term some mixed notion as "the Way" in order to
convey this (Way+Rule+Means) meaning ?

So, I will term it 道, dào​, (which is also the Direction, and many
other things, btw).   And it would be great !

But, as a lojbanist, what should I do ?   Saying some "sum" as
(Direction+Way+Rule+Order+Means) ?  Or saying some new word, a
neologism just created on-the-spot ?   Both solutions seems to me
unsatisfactory.   The "sum" solution is not that good, for one never
knows the precise import of a philosophical notion : it extends much
more than its first definition (for instance, in Spinoza's "ETHICS",
"infinitely many" is first given some precise definition, but then,
long after, it is used in a slightly different acception, AND THIS IS
THE RIGHT THING TO BE DONE)...   Either the creator of the notion
lists all of the semantic import of the new term, but thus "kills" its
generative creativity by giving it an excessively-precise
determination...  or the creator just points at SOME of the semantic
import, but then, the choice is somewhat *arbitrary*.

Creating a neologism is the other solution, but does not seem a too
good solution too, because the relationship between the shape of the
word and its meaning is somewhat lost, --- at least to some extent.

---

So, I don't know what to do...   Assuming there is some X which is
(Question+Questioning+Quest), how should a lojbanist term it ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.