Re: jorne 09 Feb 95 07:08:26 EST.) <199502091208.AA04119@access4.digex.net>

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Lojbab:
> You can call it that.  I would call it a garna se dandu bukpu.
> It certainly isn't a lanci to me, zi'o or no zi'o.

That it is not a lanci is precisely my point. And if a patterned
oblong of cloth fluttering from a flagpole cannot be a lanci be
ziho then {ziho} is of no use whatever.

> Note that there is nothing even in English flags that requires
> them to be oblong.

Oblongness is a non-defining feature of flags such that it affects
the extent to which a flag is a typical flag and for something that
only partly fits the defining features of flags, oblongness will
affect the extent to which it is categorized as a flag.

> BTW, my dictionary (American as it may be) specifically mentions symbolism as
> an integral part of the defintion for flag

Dictionaries are reference utilities for the world at large, not
accurate representations of the vocabulary of a language. (As for
the dictionary being American, most of the best dictionaries are.)
And as for the symbol being "integral" - which I shall take as meaning
a defining feature - defining features can (for some predicates) be
organized disjunctively (except perhaps in Lojban) so that not all
defining features need apply for something to qualify as a bona fide
member of the category in question. An example is "climb": X climbs
if X clambers OR if X moves upwards. If either or both of these
conditions is met, then X climbs, while if neither is met then X does
not climb. The defining features of FLAG are similarly organized, in
part at least.

This of course cannot be true of lanci: the defining features
entailed by unzihoed sumti places must always be met by any
putative sumti.

---
And