Subject: Re: [lojban] Three more issues

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:47:11

la Avital cusku di'e

>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>

You already got lots of answers for this one, but anyway:

so'i da ratcu
so'i ratcu cu zasti
so'i ratcu cu zvati
lei ratcu cu so'imei
piro loi ratcu cu so'imei
lei ratcu cu klani li so'i
mi kancu lei ratcu li so'i

and so on...

But we can also say "the set of rats is large" without using
any set gadri:

le cmaci selcmi be ro ratcu cu barda

which is not something very interesting, and besides it surely
must be false, since as far as sets go, the set of rats is not
particularly big (the set of atoms in a rat's whisker is much
much bigger, not to mention the set of prime numbers).

co'o mi'e xorxes

>
>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. =)
>
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.