Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

Lojbab:
> >  If my concept is one of irrelevancy,
> > I have used "cau".  There is indeed a second interpretation, as you have
> > pointed out, but that may not be what I intended.

xorxes:
> It still seems to me that {claxu} can't mean "irrelevant". And I can't
> read it as making some metacomment on the lujvo, as "take this gismu
> without its x5 place". The "without" has to refer to whatever sumti fills
> the place, not to the place itself within the place structure.

caucarce        x1 is a cart for carrying x2 (propulsion place being omitted)

xircaucarce     x1 is a horseless carriage for carrying x2 (the horse it
                is without being of breed x3 :-)

carce   --      x1 is a cart for carrying x2 propelled by x3
xirma   xir     x1 is a horse of breed x2
claxu   cau     x1 is lacking x2

It makes me nervous that such similar lujvo would appear solidly on
different sides of the place omission question.  This result suggests
to me that the distinction is bogus.  Hence I am inclined to deny the
possibility of "omitting" a place -- e.g. every cart has to be  capable
of being propelled by something, even though in most instances of usage
speakers take the default zo'e for the propulsion.

However, the place-omitters have a good point: why should speakers be
forced to deal with that extra place all the time?  I agree, but I say
that the gismu is too fat; x3 should be omitted entirely.  Thus:

lo rulrcarce be gau lo catke    A push-flower-cart

By the way, it is pure mental telepathy that x3 is filled by cau or xircau.
The standard Nick-oid jvajvo interpretation I believe would be:

caucarce        x1 is a cart propelled by x2 (omitting cargo) (example:
                gasbuggy, pushcart)

xircaucarce     x1 is a cart propelled by x2 which lacks any accomodation
                for carrying horses

                        -- jimc