[lojban] Noun-ness of {vindu}

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

coi

{vindu} as written in the gimste appears extremely noun-ish, and seems to implicitly contain a {ka'e}, which I find undesirable. If the definition were reworded to make it seem more "active", then tacking on ka'e (or -ka'e in a lujvo) would produce the current definition, which is more flexible.

Current definition:

vindu = x1 is poisonous/venomous/toxic/a toxin to x2.

Suggested definition:

vindu = x1 intoxicates/is a toxin affecting x2.

Also, are toxins intrinsically related to their effects? Can we say that something is a toxin if it *does nothing*? I'd also suggest throwing in an x3, a property of the x2, which is the effect of the toxin. The structure of this new vindu is thus parallel to {xajmi}.

Furthermore, {vindu} as defined makes it seem  to have an unnecessarily negative connotation. I feel that this word could be far more useful and flexible if made a bit more general, along the lines of "x1 is a substance/chemical unnaturally present/not normally in such levels in x2 with effects x3."

If {vindu} is more active, then it can be used to construct lujvo for inebriation and use of other substances such as marijuana: {xalselvindu}, {marnyselvindu}.

This lujvo would equally include the effect place and would typically have the structure: "rodyselvindu = x1 does (intention-agnostic) x2 (ka) under the influence of substance broda".

The old definition of {vindu} is achieved with {vidyka'e}, "x1 is a toxin/poison to x2 with potential effect(s) x3."

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

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