Re: {farlu}

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.math.harvard.edu>]

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > > Anybody agree with me?
 >
 > I don't have much problem with the x2 and x3 of {farlu}, you can
 > always say {la alis cu farlu le cnita le gapru}.

But that adds no information; and furthermore, it's more in the
character of a route specification than a source/destination.

 > The one I don't
 > like much is the x4, which I have no idea how to fill. If ever
 > needed, there is {bai} for that, but I'm not even sure how to say
 > "gravity". I thought something with {lacpu}, but its x3 makes
 > it really difficult.

I, on the other hand, have no particular problem with the x4.  Recall it
can be a gravity well or frame of reference.  In almost all cases, it's
going to be {le terdi}, but in SF stories, for instance, it might have a
different value.  Alternatively, you could perhaps say {le sraji}.

{lacpu} is probably inappropriate for "gravity" because of its x3, as
you say.  (Though for gravity the "locus" might be the whole body, {le
sevzi} perhaps?)  As another stab, I'd try {le vlipa be lenu farlu} or
n{le farvli}, or maybe {le fargau}.  (Though this is only really
appropriate if those extraneous places of {farlu} are excised.)

 > In general, all the places like "in frame of reference", "by standard",
 > "under conditions", "in manner", etc. (which at least are usually in
 > the last position) seem really hard to use, and rather arbitrary.
 > Why does {xamgu} have a standard but {xlali} doesn't?

Umm...  Check again.  {xlali} does have a standard in my list.  I would
argue for those places (though I would change the definition a little):
otherwise {xamgu} and {xlali} would have to be extraordinarily vague,
and there would be no way to say in what way or for what purpose x1 was
good/bad.

 > Why does
 > {xanka} have "under conditions" but {gleki} doesn't?

Dunno here.

 > Why does
 > {curmi} have "under conditions" but not {gasnu}?

For this one, I can see a reason:  {gasnu} refers to an actual event,
while {curmi} is a counterfactual:  x1 would allow x2 to happen in
conditions x3.

 > Why does {cpedu}
 > have "in manner" but {dunda} doesn't?

Dunno here too.

 > All those places make learning gismu much harder than it should be.
 > I have no problem remembering the places of {dunda}, which are
 > all clean and to the point, the relationship between them clear.
 > But {cpedu}, which could be the same, is much harder because there
 > is that x4 with some unclear relationship to the other three, and
 > since I know that there is something more to {cpedu} than I would
 > expect, the whole relationship becomes more blurry in my mind.

Excellent point.  That place is just a placeholder for adverbial
characterization, which can and should be added in any number of other
ways:  attitudinals with {dai} or the BAI modal {ta'i} being two that
leap to mind.  That sort of characterization can be added to _any_
action, and it's not appropriate to have this particular place.

 > My hope is that all those places will simply be forgotten for lack
 > of use, since I doubt that I could convince Lojban Central to drop
 > them.

Do you think we could organize a rebellion :-)?  (No, I'm not really
proposing another split.  I am half-seriously contemplating listing my
own versions of various gismu with texts I write.)

 > > mu'o mi'e la dilyn.
 > >   noi gleki lonu mi te cipra ca le cerni kei
 > >         poi romoi leme lenu mi ve bancycu'e
 >
 > i uidai zansnada

.i go'i

 > co'o mi'e xorxes

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.