Re: xamgu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

la robin cusku di'e

>G(w,x,y,z)
>
>G -> is beneficial for or advantageous to;
>w -> the event, state, object or person which is held to be good
>x -> the event, state, object or person which w is advantageous for;
>y -> the criterion by which w is judged;
>z -> the situations where the statement applies.

I disagree that we need y and z in the place structure.

[ BTW, Lojban {xamgu} has y but doesn't have z, but it can always
be added with {va'o}.]

My reasoning is that the "under conditions" and the "by standard"
places can apply to any gismu, so it makes as much sense to
have them fixed as to have a place for "in place x", or for "at time x".
It is arbitrary which gismu got "standard" and "under conditions"
places. There isn't any system that I could figure out. In practice
it means that you have to learn those places by heart for each
gismu or simply ignore them for all of them, which is what
I do. When I need to specify the conditions under which the claim
holds I use {va'o}, when I need to specify a standard I can
use {ma'i}. I use {va'o} rather frequently, and {ma'i} very rarely.

 >Anyway, I think "xamgu" is one of the cases where Lojban encourages
>critical thinking.

If having a "by standard" place encourages critical thinking, why not have
one for every gismu? Take any gismu that doesn't have a "by standard"
place, why is a standard more relevant for xamgu than for that gismu?
Because there is in general more agreement about the standards?
Who decides what concepts enjoy general agreement and thus do not
require "by standard" places?

For example, {fusra}, "x1 is rotten with fermentation agent x2". Is there
an absolute standard of rottenness? Or is it simply that "goodness" is
a more sensitive issue?

> I was about to try concluding in Lojban by saying that
>(x1)the term "xamgu" is good (x2) for learners of Lojban (x3) by the
>standards of critical thinking,

What is a standard of critical thinking?  Do you mean that
the term is good at encouraging critical thinking? But is that
really what the x3 is for? Let's say that some term encouraged
blind fanaticism. Would we say that the term was good for
learners of Lojban at encouraging blind fanaticism?
I don't think that x3 of {xamgu} can be the function for which x1
is suitable. Probably {mapti} is a better word for "suitable".

>but I got confused because I don't know
>how to refer to a word as a semantic unit (i.e. concept) rather than a
>quotation.

 Maybe {la'e zo xamgu}.

i la'e zo xamgu cu xamgu le lojbo cilre ki'u le nu matra le nu
racli pensi

[Is {matra} a good word for "encourages"?]

co'o mi'e xorxes