Re: [lojban] What is the x3 of tubnu?

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

Jacob Errington wrote:

Well, even that wording isn't really so bad at all. I mean -- what is a pipe? It's essentially a "transient container" open on both ends, isn't it?

A container is implicitly defined by its function (to contain its contents). tubnu and certain other words are shapes or forms - the function may follow from the form, but the essential concept is the form and not the function.

You'll find that the wording of a lot of gismu make reference to the form/function dichotomy - something we thought was of fundamental semantic importance back when we defined the place structures.

I noticed that in some of the definitions, comparing {kabri}, {tansi}, {tanxe} to {kurfa}, {cukla}, {slanu}.

I remember rather liking how versatile they were because of the distinction, like using {slanu kabri} for most cups or mugs, while using the same root to build lujvo like {ctikabri}. It really creates a different class of words that are surprisingly specific in definition compared to cup/bowl/etc. (as in, do you call a bowl a bowl because it is used for soup or because it is rounded?)

So, defining {tubnu} becomes a matter of whether we want it to be a shape/form definition or functional. If it's a shape/form definition, I see the functional version being something like {benji tubnu} for pipe. If it's a functional definition, I see {kevna slanu} being the shape/form equivalent. Just looking at those options, I'm kind of in favor of using tubnu functionally, as a container, while using {kevna} in general to express shape/forms that have interiors. (Are there any other shape/form words that have two materials? I don't recall having seen one.)

Additionally, I feel that the current choice of psuedo-glosses is a functional set, not a shape/form set. It's left ambiguous as to whether it has to be a circular cylinder or if it could have any shape of cross-section, so long as it "carries" or "contains" things like a tube/pipe would. For that matter, it's ambiguous whether {slanu} has the math or intuitive definition of cylinder. (The intuitive definition says it should have a circular cross-section, some math definitions merely require the cross-section to be uniform.) This is relevant for discussing things like {slanu kabri} (above) and {damtu'u} (below). In the former, I'm trying to use {slanu} to emphasize the circular cross-section shape, but in {damtu'u}, the shape merely has to carry fluid, lending to a functional definition.

Also note that we have the lujvo {jabytu'u}, {damtu'u}, {moltu'u}, {tu'urbirka} as dependencies. (Anyone see any others?) They all seem to lend themselves more to the functional definition, though I'm not sure about {jabytu'u}.

All in all, at the start of this email I was pretty indifferent, but looking around the definitions, I really want {tubnu} to have a more well-defined functional definition, taking dependencies into account, and I want {slanu} to be clear as to it's cross-section. I almost think it's enough to warrant another sumti place for the shape of cross-section, defaulting to circular, similar in nature to the x3 spot of {kurfa}. What do others think?