Subject: Three more issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:18:15 -0500 (CDT)

Before I start, let me state that I met with Adam Raizan, a fellow 
brojbopre, and it seems that each of us was amazed and glad to know 
that there are other 'real' jbopre in Israel. I also met with xod, 
olivian [I lack the knowledge of her full name, therefore the use of 
her IRC nick], and John Cowan in Manhatten.

Wow. It's weird actually *meeting* Lojbanists. =)

---

Issue A: (This is mainly for la xorxes.)
Without using sets, how can "There are many rats" be said? (The book 
says it as <le'i ratcu cu barda>

Issue B:
As I understand lujvo, any lujvo may be defined *W/O* tanru, using be 
and poi/voi (or je) [assuming that <lo broda je brode> is the same as 
<lo broda poi brode>, and <le broda je brode> is the same as <le broda 
voi brode>.

Examples: 
brabloti = bloti poi barda = bloti je barda
bifmlo = molki be lo nu brife

and the lujvo-making standard is the one stating how such a 
construction is turned into a lujvo, and the other way around. If this 
is correct, then this brings me to two sub-points:

Issue B.1:
<cakcinki>, therefore is *not* a beetle, but any shelled insect. The 
reason, I read, that a beetle is called a <cakcinki>, is because 
<calku> is a 'dominant' part of the definition of a beetle. I think 
there should be a difference between more 'metaphoric', 'implicit' 
definitions like <cakcinki> for beetle, and just <cakcinki> for shelled 
insect. If this is not true, then there is no true way to understand 
lujvo from there definition, only get a clue.

I would suggest some other construction, either an extra rafsi, or 
something of fu'ivla-type to specify such a word, since (as I see it) 
is not really a lujvo.

Issue B.2:
Why does the dictionary have an English gloss (which as I see it is 
meaningless many times [for example brabloti = ship (?!)]), but not 
the 'long' version of the lujvo, using poi and be? This would be 
a 'real' definition, which can include the entire place structure.

Issue C:
Since tanru are (very) semantically ambiguous, how can we allow 
ourselves to define language concepts using tanru (e.g. <sumti tcita>, 
<se steci srana>, etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts!

Issue D:
Why the hell does <brivla> mean what it means? How do the two terms 
connect, and why would it mean only one word? What's the real 
difference between a brivla and a selbri, then? I mean, <nu prenu kei> 
is lo valsi, isn't it?

Maybe I had more?

Well, I can always send some more e-mail. =)