Re: [lojban] Specifying sumti types: another revision of gimste is complete

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-05-25 18:11 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

Are (object, event, text) all the types there are? x1 of ckaji can be of any type at all, not just those three.

What other possible types you can imagine?

number, property, du'u...

I'm not exactly sure how "type", "subtype" and "denotation in the dictionary" are supposed to interact though. If a place is tagged "person", does that mean that it can't be used to fill a place tagged "agent"? Obviously that can't be right, "person" and "agent" are compatible. So it's hard to tell to what extent the types are restrictive.

In fact any time one of the arguments is a property of another argument, there's a good chance that the type of that other argument is dictated only by the type of the ce'u in the property, This also applies to comparatives (zmadu, mleca, dunli, simsa,...) It would be easier to revise the list if you sort it by type signature rather than just alphabetically.

Sort them by x1 or show the tersumti type for each place in separate columns?

It would be nice to have all the gismu where x2 is a property of x1 together for example, those where x3 is a property of both x1 and x2 together, those where x2 is a number, those where x2 is the material of x1, and so on. With these type of criteria gismu can be sorted into 20 or so classes in which all have roughly the same type of place structure. I did that some time in the past but unfortunately I lost the files I worked with.

I don't see why "lo since" couldn't go in the x1 of ckape.

Because then we dont know what is the property of {lo since} that makes it dangerous.

Surely that can't be the reason. In "lo nu kelci lo fagri cu ckape", how do you know what the property of playing with fire is that makes it dangerous?

Inject {makau}?

Inject it where? "ckape" tells you that x1 is dangerous to x2, it doesn't tell you which property of x1 makes it dangerous. You can always ask "lo nu ta ckape cu jalge lo nu ta ckaji ma", or "ta ckape ri'a ma" if you want to know wgat makes it dangerous. That goes both for objects and events. Just because it's an event that is dangerous doesn't mean that you know what property of the event makes it dangerous.

I don't think "group" is a type in this sense at all. A few places do require plural arguments, but most (all?) places allow plural arguments. This is independent of the type of argument they expect.

Well, "group" is used mostly for species of animal gismu. Any ideas what would be the best name for it for newbies?

No, I've never been able to figure out how to use the species places. CLL suggests Linnaean names, but since I don't know the Linnaean name of practically any animal and much less plant, I don't really have a use for those places.

What do you think of something like "mi ckire lo cevni lo nu mi ka'e viska"?

You skipped this one. Can't x3 of ckire be an event?

1. I don't think so. This implies x3 is independent of x2

Not really, just because something is not mentioned as part of an event doesn't mean the event is independent of it. The meaning of "ckire" requires that x1 believes x2 to be somehow responsible for x3.

2. Actually I don't separate events and properties. They can often be in the same places, I agree that this rule needs further clarification.

means you want it to be only for abstract cones? Would a traffic cone qualify as a konju in your sense?
that cone is characterized by two segments such that one has been revolved around the other one forming the cone. I think we are going to delve into Uqbar now since e.g. a traffic triangle is similarly not really a triangle and so on meaning that geometrical ideal shapes are impossible in this real world.

My question is more basic. You decided to move "konju" from the bolci/slanu/... class to the linji/kurfa/... class. konju is not the only word in its class, so if you think it needs to be redefined, shouldn't all other words in that class be redefined as well? Why just "konju"?

Well, okay I can ignore all non-x1 place of {konju} then but this would require discussing tools of describing defining features of all those geometric shapes in a separate thread.

Yes, it's better to discuss them as a group rather than each word in isolation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes