old response on "pregnant"

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>]

>From: John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>
>Subject:      Pregnant
>To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
>
>Several people have objected that "pazvau" ("panzyvasru", "offspring-
>container") could equally well refer to a crib.  But the place
>structure prevents this:
>
>        v1=p2 v2=p1
>        x1 is a container/parent for contents/offspring x2
>
>which means that a crib can be a "pazvau" only if the "se pazvau" is the
>crib's child!

Begs the question, since the place structure is devised from the meaning
which in turn is the English concept.  To have the word mean crib, one
would have to have a somewhat different place structure, but that just
argues for - having a different place structure.  The point made by the
critics of pazvau = "pregnant" is that the tanru "panzi vasru" has an
obvious and useful broader meaning which seems to be lujvo-able, making
thate meaning a better choice than that the restrictive meaning given by
Nick's list and enshrined in the drfat dictionary.  In short, this is
perhaps a lujvo that should be weeded out or recast.

Written independetly, and combining two messages in one:

The recent discussion of "pregnant" turns out to match closely with what
I hear Nora saying regarding her dictionary work.  Yes it is true that
the dictionary draft has "pazvau = offspring-container" for "pregnant".
Presumably someone once used teh word for that concept.  But
"offspring-container" could also mean "cradle" or "womb".  Without the
original context, it is hard to know for sure that even the translation
"pregnant" is correct for the Lojban.

In any event, even if the word is valid, it is Nora's concern that
"pregnant" appear in the English side of the dictionary with ONLY that
Lojban equivalent, even though there are other at-least-as-good words
for the concept that will be less questionable and which might have
different/better place structures.  She fears more-or-less that words
appearing on the English side of the dictionary with only one equivalent
are going to become encoded-English based on the implied strict 1-1
correspondence.  Sje is especially fearful if the word chosen is
intentionally poetic/metaphorical (e.g.  Karen Stein's snowflake done as
"snow-flower" or something like that).  No idea how to solve this.  We
can have all the disclaimers we want, but some people will use a
dictionary thoughtlessly.

My real feeling is that with suitable disclaimer, and our likely
intention to revise the dictionary often in terms of ADDING words (not
changing them, which would violate the baseline) would suffice.  

(but this does not invalidate the problem caused by constraining the
lujvo based on the restrictive place structure analysis that you
referred to in the message quoted above.

Opinions?

lojbab