Subject: [lojban] Re: Let's be friends

From: Martin Norbäck <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Nov 2002 14:27:02 +0100

tis 2002-11-19 klockan 14.16 skrev Pierre Abbat:
> On Tuesday 19 November 2002 07:58, Martin Norbäck wrote:
> > tis 2002-11-19 klockan 13.30 skrev Pierre Abbat:
> > But isn't it an absolute requirement that the tanru and the lujvo are
> > special cases of the root gismu?
> >
> > If xajyfi'e (dolphin?) isn't a fish, then finpe cannot mean "fish", but
> > perhaps "fish-like animal".
> >
> > And the gismu word-list says:
> > x1 is a fish of species x2 [metaphorical extension to sharks, non-fish
> > aquatic vertebrates]
> >
> > Why sharks are mentioned, I don't know, since they are true fish, but
> > dolphins can be counted as non-fish aquatic vertebrates, as can penguins
> > and crocodiles.
> >
> > So I don't buy the argument not to use the full gismu in a lujvo, the
> > rafsi would mean the exact same thing.
> 
> "metaphorical extension" AFAIU means that it can be used with that meaning in 
> a tanru, even if the gismu by itself doesn't mean that.

So it's a bit wrong to call a dolphin a finpe, but xajyfinpe is ok? Or
can you use a gismu metaphorically as well?

My main point was that there is no difference in a lujvo between the
gismu and it's rafsi. So which form you use is irrelevant.

mi'e norpan