Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Well, this is a move forward.  The AND involved in these examples are tanru 
constructions, two words (from two concepts) forged into a single construction, 
with a new meaning that derives from that of the two original concepts and some 
unspecified glue that holds them together. Agitprop is propanganda (A) for the 
purpose of stirring up the masses (B), so the AND here (which physically is only 
concatenation) is the notion of using something A for a purpose B.  As such, the 
combined form inherents some of the meanings of each of the original words (not, 
for example, spreading the Gospel for A nor nervous tics for B) and also an 
appropriate part of the meaning of the glue.  So you want question AND 
questioning AND quest.
So, now all you have to do is: 1. decide what you want to your final notion to 
inherit from each of these pieces (and as you do that, consider whether another 
word might not point to that feature more directly -- this one, in English is 
going to sound like double plus ungood duckspeak) decide what the glue is to be 
in each case (this also involves deciding how the pieces are to be fit together: 
one ternary relation, two binary ones or several binary ones connecting various 
parts independently and then joining the products).  That done, you have your 
word (good for any language with the appropriate modifications) and your 
definition.  So, it would be nice to see, to start with, the answers to 1 and at 
least parts of 2.



----- Original Message ----
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 29, 2011 9:10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

Luke, I am not doggy-philosophically qualified to tell if Cummerbund
is a valid concept.  But Dao is regarded by philosophers as a valid
concept even if it embodies some multiple inheritance...   Also, I
don't think you're ignorant, you just have a more
mathematics-polarized mind than me (besides, this is not plainly
exact, I think OOP-multiple inheritance can be
mathematically-logically understood).

Why not being entitled to mix notions together ?   After all, what is
"agit-prop" ?  This term refers to a specific mix of "agitation" and
"propaganda".  Hence, the soviet neologism.   This is a particular
case of deciding it is valuable, to some extent and for some usage, to
mix up together A and B, and get the mixed-notion (A+B).   There are
many other examples in language, either in tool names, in philosophic
or political concepts, in some caracterisation of some hybrid species,
and so on...

You would argue that mixing up concepts is the kind of "ideological"
nonsense, or illogical argle-bargle that Lojban want to get rid of.
In some sense, the fact that it occurs a lot in ideology and
philosophy, two non-neutral thought-fields, is a hint...   But, well,
even this is no argument :  if someone wants to show that the use of a
notion (or a simili-notion) is argle-bargle, it is necessary for him
to be able to term it, to design it...  thus, it is required we can
say even illogical base pseudo-notions in Lojban, even if it be just
to trample them down.   Someone can scold me, but I think that {
speaking of a (both A and B)-object is valid } IFF { speaking of a
A-object AND speaking of a B-object are valid }.

-- 
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.

-- 
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.