Subject: [lojban] Re: spofu skami

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:31:47 -0800

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:24:46PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:16:51AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 01:12:17PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:57:03AM -0500, Invent Yourself
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > It is part of the basic definition. The definition is not
> > > > > > "nerve"; that's a logflash mnemonic.
> > > > >
> > > > > x1 is a nerve/neuron [body-part] of x2
> > > > >
> > > > > Note the words 'nerve', 'neuron', and 'body-part'. Perhaps
> > > > > you're talking about a different definition?
> > > >
> > > > You know what I'm talking about. Pretend I've explained myself.
> > >
> > > Umm, no, I don't. IIRC we've discussed this before, and I threw
> > > my hands up in frustration because I couldn't understand what the
> > > hell you were trying to say.
> > [...]
> > > Note the cf. to "ve benji", which seems like it might do what you
> > > want.
> >
> > I agree with robin.
> >
> > All the "metaphor" suggestions in the gismu list are anti-lojbo, and
> > encourage polysemy.
> 
> The gi'uste is a baseline document, defining what lojbo is! Having a
> definition that's slightly larger than the mnemonic is not polysemy.

"nerve" and "information network connection" are *extremely* disparate.
There is no sense in which a definition that includes both a worm's
neuron as its primary definition and a fiber-optic cable as an ancillary
definition is defining a single concept, and each definition defining
one thing is core to lojban last I checked.

Yes, I'm aware of teddy bear. But it's specifically pointed out that
that might cause confusion, and it certainly isn't listed in the
gi'uste. More importantly, a teddy bear is, to me, much more obviously
a bear than a fiber optic cable is a neuron. In the former case, there
are obvious physical similarities. In the latter there are not. And
given the way biological neural networks are laid out, arguing that
computer networks are similar in function is stretching things a *lot*.

If I can I'm going to convince the bpfk of my POV on this word, just for
the record.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin.
.i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu
.i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai
http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi