Subject: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:21:54 -0500

I wrote:
> > I interpreted this to mean that all stizu's (chairs) are also (se zutse)'s
> > (things sat upon). Not so sure I agreed with this, I asked whether stizu's
> > were se zutse's even if nobody was sitting in them. "Sure they are," was
> > the answer, with the subsequent discussion basically saying that stizu's are
> > se zutse's because someone can sit in/on them. If this is really the case,
> > I think something in my understanding of lojban needs to be adjusted.

xod wrote:
> OK, let's say the stizu is a chair which someone has sat in, and which was
> designed for sitting.

Then it is clearly a "pu se zutse", which is a type of "se zutse". But this
wasn't exactly the question. The question was whether a chair is a se zutse
in the absence of a present, past or future sitter. 

> Let's see you define sit and chair. 

I think it's more productive to define zutse and stizu, which are:

zutse - x1 sits [assumes sitting position] on surface x2 

stizu - x1 is a chair/stool/seat/bench, a piece or portion of a piece of
furniture intended for sitting

These were taken from the gismu list, which appears to be the most
authoritative dictionary-like-thing I've found.

> Specify whether
> a cat box is a type of chair.

Appears to be a stizu, yes.

> How about a petri dish? (Are the bacteria
> sitting? or standing up?)

This depends on what "sitting" means in the gi'uste definition. I think
it's clear that whoever wrote the gi'uste intended for this to apply to
people and animals we would normally think of as sitting. Therefore it
would seem to apply to humans and cats, but not to bacteria.  

Perhaps it's too early to be griping, but aren't the gismu supposed to be
well-defined? It seems to me that for them to be well defined, we're either
going to have to accept the "spirit" of the definitions in the gi'uste or
some other source, or someone is going to have to write a full-up
legalese-style definition of exactly what relationships each gismu can and
can not signify..

Having said that, I don't think the definitions of stizu and zutse are all
that relevant to my question. Let me try to abstractify the question so
that these definitions don't get in the way.

Suppose that I create an item (goi ko'a), with the intention that in the
future someone would use it in a way such that the statement "[zo'e] broda
ko'a" would be true. Further suppose that from the time I create the item,
until the end of time, that relationship never becomes true. Would it then
be a true statement to say "ko'a se broda [zo'e]", based solely on my intent
that the relationship be true? I don't think so, because:

zo'e na broda ko'a .ijanai ko'a na se broda zo'e

> You're welcome, although you probably have retracted the thanks by now!

Actually, no, I'm still hoping you'll give me a useful answer. ;)

.ui co'o mi'e djan.