Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: zi'o & otpi

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:37:59 +0100

Lojbab:
> At 08:17 PM 07/10/2000 +0200, Elrond wrote:
[...]
> >I postulate that the "dog breed" is a rather simple concept that *should*
> >be allowed not to need actual dogs to be thought about. I might be wrong,
> >and thinking actually about "gerku girzu" instead of "se gerku". 

(se) gerku is a relation between dog and breed. So while I agree dog breeds
needn't 'contain' actual dogs, such a dog breed cannot be described by
zi'oless {(se) gerku}.

> 
> The answer is that "dog breed" the English phrase is MORE THAN ONE concept 
> that in Lojban must be expressed in more than one way depending on what it 
> is you are trying to say. Lojban allows finer distinctions in meaning than 
> English does, in its pursuit of one word/one meaning and that pretty much 
> assures that there will be aspects of most every English word that cannot 
> all be covered by one Lojban word.
> 
> If this is constraining, then it is an intended constraining.
> 
> Again, to me, a dog breed that has no dogs is not really a dog breed at 
> all, but something similar to a dog breed, or of the form of a dog breed or 
> having the properties of a dog breed. In modern parlance it is probably a 
> set of traits, or perhaps a particular range of the dog genome. However it 
> is you are defining this thing that is not quite a dog breed because it 
> does not have any dogs in it, you would choose a different Lojban word to 
> express that different definition - a definition that does not include an 
> association with one or more potential dogs. (Remember that a Lojban place 
> can be filled with a potential sumti, so claiming that there is nothing 
> that fills the dog place means not only that there is no dog in that breed 
> but that there cannot potentially be a dog in that breed).

Have you forgotten that this thread has been about whether "se gerku be zi'o"
is sensical? Elrond (platonist like me) was (I think) replying to those who 
said it wasn't. Your reply can basically be read as endorsing his reply.

--And.