Re: TECH: long, but major topic: lean lujvo and fat gismu

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

mi'e .djan. .i la xorxes. cusku di'e

> What I find harder to accept, is the elimination "because it doesn't fit
> the concept I want". Nick says that this is often an indication of the
> wrong gismu having been chosen, but accepts it in some of the examples.
>
> Here is where "fat gismu" come in. It is true that sometimes, it seems
> wrong to leave a place, but there doesn't seem to be a better gismu to do
> the job, so that a gismu+zi'o seem to be required. What I say is that if
> such a gismu is required to form a lujvo, then that concept is a valid
> concept by itself, and the gismu is "fat". I don't think there are that
> many gismu in this situation, but I'm sure there are a few.

I mostly agree with this.  "If there's a reason for having the place in the
gismu, there's probably a situation where it would be useful in a lujvo."

In an earlier private message, I brought up the question of "posydji",
which Nick gives as "x1 desires that x1 possess x2", arguing that a longer
lujvo is needed for the more oddball concept that the desirer and the
possessor are distinct.  So far so good.  But he then throws out the x3
place of "ponse", the law or custom governing the possession, and here I
differ with him.

I rent an apartment in NYC from the city government.  I am not an owner
legally, but as long as I pay my rent I am essentially irremovable.
This anomalous position will soon be converted to legal ownership through
a non-profit coop.  So I say that:

        mi ponse le mi zdani le tcaci be la nuIORK.
        I possess my house according-to the custom of New York.

and I further assert that;

        mi posydji le mi zdani le flalu be la nuIORK.
        I possess-desire my house according-to the law of New York.

> > Moreover, neither of these expresses what we USUALLY want to say for a
> > doghouse, which is that
> >
> > x1 is a gerzda (house-for-dogs) of-dog (specific) x2
>
> This is true only if you give dogs their preferred domestic animal status,
> which gerku by itself does not suggest. You wouldn't want {mantyzda} to mean
>
> x1 is an ant-nest of ant (specific) x2,
>
> but rather
>
> x1 is an ant-nest of ants of species x2.

I don't think this point is particularly strong, as "gerku" and "manti" are
not necessarily perfectly coordinate.  In fact, at one point "manti" and
"bifce" had explicit x3 places for the nest/hive, on the grounds that an
isolated ant or bee made no sense.  This fell by the wayside, since "bifce"
covers wasps as well, many of which are asocial or minimally social.

> I think this is the general case, and if you want the other for dogs, it's
> only because we tend to think of them more as individuals, than as just
> a member of their species.

One might argue that the true Lojban word for "domestic dog" is "gerkypre",
with place structure "x1 is a doggish-individual".

> > Similarly, if "I go to France" and "you go to France", we can say "we go
> > to France" without implying that we started from the identical origina,
> > used the identical route, as well as the identical means.
>
> Are you saying that {mi e do klama le frasygugde} means the same as
> {mi'o klama le frasygugde}? I think the latter means that we start
> from the same origin, same route and means, is this wrong?

Yes, it is.  "zo'e" (or elision, which semantically is the same thing) is
really, really undefined.  Context can fill in anything at all, with any
quantification.  To express that we both go to France with the same
origin, route, and means, you must say something like:

        mi .e do klama le frasygu'e da de di

which when logically expanded has the right effect.  BTW, "mi'o" does not
mean "mi .e do", but rather "mi joi do": it is a mass pronoun.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.