Subject: RE^n+m:literalism

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:07:31 EDT

xod:
<<What is a "concept we already have"? A gismu? Something that can be
described with a tanru? I will boldly assert that ANYTHING can be
described as a tanru with the existing gismu. Don't make me have to prove
it; it may get ugly.>>
I'll settle for ^raccoon^ for starters, but clearly not a gismu (and I'll
temporarily disregard borrowings). Of course, you have the easy
part, since I have to come up with the concept we don't yet have. I
suspect, however, that some of the ones we already "have" will
result in things quite ugly enough (some already have).

<<no'e dukse masno .ima'ibo le tsali lojban na banro va'o le du'u ma'a ze'e
casnu bau le glico >>
Well, I don't think it has done too badly these last 45 years and
probably for the next few as well, but it would be nice if more peple
could carry on discussions IN Lojban, even if not at this intense
level.

<<He appears to be claiming that if a tanru ends in a gismu, that tanru is
implicit in that gismu. Therefore the only way to arrive at a
"new" concept is to create a tanru without a final gismu!>>
I don't think I could even *appear* to be saying that, but in any case I am 
not. The point is, remember, about *literal* tanru, and then I am saying 
that, insofar as the tanru is literal the concept it presents is alrady 
contained in its components (not just the final one). Again, I thought this 
was trivial, but somehow it seems to be obscure.