Semantics

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 1992 16:27:00 EST
>From: "61510::GILSON"
 <gilson%61510.decnet%CFE1.NRL.NAVY.MIL@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
>And Rosta <ucleaar%UCL.AC.UK@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU> writes:

>>For example, is a _mruli_ ('hammer, weighted stick tool used for unspecified
>>purpose') typically used for hitting? If one uses a weighted stick tool
>>for some other purpose, e.g. raking leaves, is it a _mruli_ or should
>>some other word be sought? Could one call an instrument used for
>>hitting a _mruli_ even if it isn't a weighted stick, or should one
>>seek another word to avoid being misunderstood. Is a bottle more of
>>a botpi than a cup? A bowl? A chalice? An amphora?

My feeling on this is uncomfprtably ambiguous.  When I see {mruli} used
with a LE word, then I think of a standard hammer.  But used as a selbri, I
figure something more along the lines of "is used as a hammer", so I can
see {lo rokci cu mruli pi'o mi}, "a rock 'hammers' as-used-by me".  Maybe
to be clear I'd do {lo rokci sepi'o mruli pi'o mi}, "a rock is-usingly
a-hammer used-by me", using the tense aspect of BAI.  I'm playing with such
things wrt a translation of the tower of babel story.  I suspect it's a
non-lojbanic way of looking at things, and I'm not happy with it yet.

>This is not specific to Lojban. _Any_ conlang is going to have this problem.
>English uses the word "water" to denote at least two things:
>1. A chemical substance that could be more systematically designated as
>   "dihydrogen oxide," and
>2. The substance referred to in 1. when in its liquid form.

>I do not know if any conlang up to now distinguishes them (Language X will,
>if I get my way, which I think will be the case) but neither of these meanings
>quite corresponds to that of Japanese "mizu," which often is glossed as "water"
>in translations. "Mizu" in fact, is best translated "cold water," though most
>times when one sees "mizu," in fact, it would do no harm to translate it as
>just "water" because the relevance of its temperature is not there. The point
 is
>that, if a Lojban, Esperanto, etc. word is glossed as "mizu" in Japanese, he
>will look in vain for another word to mean "yu" (= hot water) which to him is
>as different from "mizu" as "steam" is from "water" in English. Since the over-
>whelming majority of Lojban users are native speakers of English, I suspect
>that most of them do not even realize when they may be defining a word in a
>way that will cause trouble, even given the existence of the concept of
>"malglico."

This is just the "color" argument in not-very new clothing.  To an English
speaker, "green" and "blue" are as different as could be wished, but a
language foo speaker might have the same word and not see the difference.
Even so the distinction between "cold-water" and "hot-water" where English
uses just "water".  *Any* language, and any conlang, has to draw its line,
and that line will be arbitrary, and that's just the way it is.

~mark (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)