Re: misc responses to Jorge from last month, esp. SEI

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

On {sei krefu} we will have to disagree. If {sei dei krefu} makes sense,
then the gismu list should be corrected so that the x1 need not be
an event.

xorxes:
> >I propose that the place structure of {skari} be changed to "x1 is of
> >the colour of x2", which is much more useful than the current one.
lojbab:
> 1. Because the truth condition is indeterminate in that case. Colors
> truly are observer and conditions dependent (at least to some people -
> other consider color an innate property implicit in the atomic or
> molecular structure).
>
> It is not necessarily true that two things are the same color to all
> observers and under all conditions.

It is also not true that something is blue to all observers and under all
conditions. It is also not true that someone is a person to all
observers and under all conditions. I doubt that you can find many
gismu that can hold for all observers and under all conditions.

> 2. What do you put in x2 for x1 = ultraviolet light,

{noda}. As far as I know ultraviolet light is invisible, so it has no
colour. Or is skari something different from colour?

> or for that matter,
> he sun, which has a mixture of several frequencies of light.

pe'i le solri cu pelxu i pe'ipei

How does the current place structure of skari help here?

> The problem is that this has been debated over and over for several
> years of Loglan history, inconclusively, and no one can agree as to what
> the place structure of color words should be.  Between skari and the
> individual colors, I tried to cover all bases.

Well, you didn't say what is the difference, if any, between
{ta skari le ka blanu} and {ta ckaji le ka blanu}. Can you give
an example where the current place structure of skari is useful?

> BTW, try for x2 putting in hue/brightness/saturation as another
> alternative.

Could you give examples? I can't make any sense of it.

> >> and maybe Nick needs to include
> >> a note about these kinds of words. rango, danlu a nd a few others have
> >> this problem too.
> >{danlu} seems to be perfectly normal, and {rango} is pretty standard
> >too.  What is the problem with them?
> It seems likely that lujvo based on those words might not be intended to
> use more than the x1 place.

I don't see why. Any lujvo-animal should have a species place, just
like all gismu-animals.

> ni'o
> >PS1:  Instead of {ca} I would have preferred to use the proposed new
> >ZAhO for "already".
> bapu'o or ba'opu'o ???

bapu'o = will be about to.

[ca]ba'opu'o = has been about to.

Neither of those has the meaning of "already".

Jorge