From biomass@hobbiton.org Mon Apr 16 07:21:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: biomass@hobbiton.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 16 Apr 2001 14:21:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 66840 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 14:21:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Apr 2001 14:21:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO elrond.hobbiton.org) (216.161.236.97) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 14:21:53 -0000 Received: from hobbiton.org (biomass@thorin.hobbiton.org [216.161.236.98]) by elrond.hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f3GEO7w01505 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:24:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from biomass@localhost) by hobbiton.org (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f3GEIFP31641; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:18:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:18:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200104161418.f3GEIFP31641@hobbiton.org> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Three more issues From: biomass@hobbiton.org 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 Issue B: As I understand lujvo, any lujvo may be defined *W/O* tanru, using be and poi/voi (or je) [assuming that is the same as , and is the same as . 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: , therefore is *not* a beetle, but any shelled insect. The reason, I read, that a beetle is called a , is because is a 'dominant' part of the definition of a beetle. I think there should be a difference between more 'metaphoric', 'implicit' definitions like for beetle, and just 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. , , etc? Those would mean extremely 'wide' concepts! Issue D: Why the hell does 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, is lo valsi, isn't it? Maybe I had more? Well, I can always send some more e-mail. =)