Re: gismu questions/suggestions...

la korant. cusku di'e

> "speni" 1 married 2     add [under law/custon/system 3]

I agree.

> "panzi" 1 is offspring of mom 2 and dad 3
> 
>                 add [at time 4, place 5]        eliminate "jbena"

No, the distinction between "panzi" and "jbena" is the distinction between
the genetic parents and the birth mother.  "panzi" no longer has separate
places for the separate parents.

> verba   1 is a child    add [ of species 2]

"child" is not a well-defined concept outside the human species.  "verba"
is the gender neutral term for "nanla" and "nixli".

> "fatci" 1 is an absolute fact - I don't understand this concept.

"lo fatci" is something which is so, independent of epistemology.  Your
epistemology may lead you to believe that there are no such things, but
in order to say so you need the concept.

> "benji"/"muvdu"/"bevri"  1 xfers/moves/carries 2 to 3 from 4 via path 5
> 
>         why have three different gismu for the same relation...?

These aren't quite the same:

	bevri (most specific): support against gravity while moving
	muvdu: move by any means
	benji: cause to relocate (not necessarily a physical object)

> "notci"  1 is a message about 2 to 3 from 4
> "xatra"  1 is a letter  about 4 to 2 from 3

"xatra" denotes a physical object, whereas "notci" is the abstract content.

>         same relations, different ordering

I agree the order should be cleaned up here.

> "bajra"  1 runs(/walks ?) to 2 from 3 via path 4
> "klama"  1 goes           to 2 from 3 via path 4 by means 5
> 
>         these I can see as different iff "bajra" also means walk (by mean foot)

"bajra" and "cadzu" now have new place structures:

	bajra - x1 runs on surface x2 with limbs x3
	cadzu - x1 walks on surface x2 with limbs x3

"klama" is the general relation of self-movement.

> "cliva" 1 goes                 from 2 via path 3 by means 4
> 
>         they have to be coming to somewhere, which makes the relation
>         the same at "klama"

Nope.  When you run away, you don't necessarily run >to< someplace.

> "prenu" 1 is a person           add [of species/race/culture/planet 2]
> 
> "nanmu"/"fetsi"/"nanla"/"nixli"
> 
>         these are (resp.) male/female adult, male/female child
> 
> 	add [of species 2], pushing the childs' place [age 3]

These are subdivisions of "remna", so reflect humanity.  Again, the notion
"child" is dubious when applied to na'e remna.

> Personally, I think adding seperate gismu only to allow gender distinctions
> is a bad idea unless necessary ("mamta"/"patfu")

What makes "mamta" and "patfu" more fundamental?  Either there should be
no gender distinctions, or every possible distinction.  Lojban goes for the
latter:  there are gendered and genderless words for all the primary kinship
terms.

> In those cases where a distinction is necessary, a tanru or lujvo should
> be used

[lujvo omitted]

This can certainly be done, but recognize that it introduces a bias in favor
of genderlessness.  The current scheme allows either gender-implicit or
gender-explicit discourse.

> A bridi is a RELATIONSHIP. There should not be seperate bridi for the same
> relationship.  Gender distictions which do not affect the relationship
> should be left out by default, and expressed only if necessary.

Who knows whether they affect the relationship?  It's a cultural question.
In many cultures (including the merko one) the relationship of parent to son
is not the same as the relationship of parent to daughter.  This is fact,
not opinion -- there are studies to back it up.

> Another way to handle the problem is to add an additional place
> to "remna","prenu","verba","cifnu","tunba", etc.  [gender .....]

That's far worse.  A place implies a claim about metaphysical necessity (in
my view, at least), so having a place of "prenu" for gender implies that
gender is a >necessary< attribute of persons, the exact reverse of what you
want.

> Freeing up many of the redundant gismu would also allow slightly more
> even distribution of rafsi for those which gismu which SHOULD get used more
> (the ones listed above).

Any time your argument includes terms like "SHOULD get used more", you are
imposing a bias on the language.

-- 
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban