[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Place structures



Lojbab writes:
- On necessary places (Gilson, after others):

>Bruce writes:
>>Now I think I finally see what disturbs me.  Whenever a gismu has its
>>place structures baselined, the decision has been made for all time what
>>are the essential components.  If the place structures for "xunre" and
>>"blanu" do not include "under illumination xn" (n = whatever) then the
>>consensus of lojbanists who accepted it do not -- to _my_ eyes -- accept
>>the reality of the fact that perceived colors depend on the light
>>source.  An apple may be black under the blue-violet lights used to
>>cause fluorescence, yellow under a sodium-vapor lamp, and red under
>>sunlight.  On the other hand, since "klama" has the 5 places that were
>>given previously, I am _forced_ to imply that those places are important
>>enough to think about, _even_ if (by using "fa" type particles or
>>"zo'e") I omit those places.  Sorry, but to me this is a _serious_
>>weakness.  It still allows Lojban as a SWH test -- in fact may very well
>>make it even _more_ useful as a SWH test, but it makes Lojban very much
>>less useful as a means of communication.

>Funny.  I can talk about whether an apple is red in English without
>specifying the illumination.  To the average person in normal usage,
>scientific fact notwithstanding, "red" does not involve illumination,
>and the average person can judge truth or falsity without caring about
>illumination.

And I can talk about "coming" in English without all the places of Lojban
"klama." Most of the time when I use "come" or "go" I don't specify the
means of transport any more than I specify the light source in describing
colors. But I see that the two are either both necessary to consider or
both unnecessary.

>As above, if it expresses a different relation, it is a different
>predicate, hence a different word in Lojban.  The only real question
>that should be involved here is whether the words should both be gismu.
>But as I said in my glossary posting, gismu are not 'primitive' in
>Lojban - the set is selected for pragmatic reasons including historical
>compatibility and usefulness in making compounds (lujvo).

I presume that the average Lojbanist does not have the right to coin gismu
and therefore, if I want to use a word for a predicate that does not include
the x3 place of a 4-place predicate, it has to be a lujvo. I do not, however,
see how to go about that, when what I am doing is not a real modification of
meaning in the way that a tanru is, but a restriction in scope in the sense
I'm talking about.

                                                   Bruce