Re: jorne

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > > Which means {ziho} is never appropriate?
> > i pe'i go'i
> > i ki'ubo rinka le nu jundi da poi da'i na zasti
> > i si'a tu'a lo me zo se cmavo cu judri'a ra
>
> I don't know how {bo} works.

{bo} has several functions. In this case, it converts a tag (ki'u)
into a sentence connector. Sentence two is the reason for sentence one.

(BTW, I am still waiting for an answer to my proposal to allow {ki'ubo}
as a sumti connector as well. Sumti can already be connected by {ki'u},
but only in forethought: {ki'ugi ko'a gi ko'e}. I would like the
afterthought mode to be allowed too: *{ko'a ki'ubo ko'e}.)

> I think I get the point though.
> I think one of the reasons I originally supported it was that
> I suspected that when people use gismu they don't check that
> it is appropriate for zohe to fill all otherwise unfilled
> sumti places.

Supposedly, in theory, if someone knows the meaning of a gismu,
they don't need to check anything. Knowing the gismu means knowing
what relationship it describes, even if not all arguments are
stated.

In practice, I agree that that is not how things work, mainly
because probably nobody is thinking in Lojban. Also, fat gismu
conspire against this. (I find suspect in this regard every gismu
with more than three places.)

> I hoped that scrupulous use of ziho by some
> people might shake things up a bit. In fact, setting aside the
> matter of resulting tanruey vagueness, filling empty places by
> ziho rather than by zohe might actually be a better guarantee
> against saying what one hadn't intended to.

I don't think so. I have trouble imagining what {dunda} means if you
ziho out one of its places, for example. And often I use a gismu
as a selbri with no explicit argument, because they are obvious, not
because they are not part of the relationship.

> All that said, I largely agree with you.
>
> However, I still hope that were I to forsake English for Lojban for more than
>  the extremely occasional utterance I
> would use ziho. My personal case for this is
>
>   lanci
>   x1 is a flag/banner/standard of/symbolizing x2 with
>   pattern(s) x3 on material x4
>
> I set aside virtual flags made of no material, or
> transparent flags with no pattern, which are improbable
> circumstances.

I find the material x4 the most questionable place there, it
doesn't seem all that relevant, and I'm sure there must be a BAI
for that. Similarly, I am much more likely to say {tavla bau
la lojban} than {tavla fo la lojban} simply because I know
{bau} much better than the whole place structure of {tavla}.
Even if I vaguely remember that {tavla} has a language place,
I would never be sure that it is the x4.

> It is the x2 that bugs me. I don't think
> it shouldn't be there, for by it we may speak of the
> flag of France, and so on. But it irks me that a flag
> that isn't the flag of anything isn't a lanci.

It's a {lanci be noda}, or just a piece of cloth.

> > i pe'i zo klama cu plana gismu
> > i mi mutce neirmau lu klama fo zi'o fu zi'o li'u
>
> Me too. Incidentally, I think {zmanei}, used recently, I
> noticed, by both me & Iain, is better than {neirmau}, since
> you basically want the place structure of nelci rather than
> zmadu, & dikyjvo/jvajvo rules say the last rafsi is primary
> determinant of place structure. I think.

You are right, {zmanei} is much better. {neirmau} would mean something
like "x1 is more of a liker than x2".

> > i ku'i zo klama ca'a ponse mu tersumti
>
> Lahe lu klama fo ziho fu ziho lihu 3 tersumti ponse.
                                              cu
i go'i  ije ra mutce tolmelbi

co'o mi'e xorxes