Re: Summary so far on DJUNO

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Goran [now studying linguistics in the USA?]:
> > I don't really think that your point is relevant to the issue about
> > {djuno}. Even if the true-x2 meaning were given to {djuno}, a lujvo
> > could be created to be the same except for the x2's truth being
> > unspecified. And vice versa.
>
> I don't know. I somehow feel that it is much easier and much more
> natural to add meaning components rather than remove them.

If what you mean is:

   morphologically simplex brivla (i.e. gismu) should tend to
   have more general, less specific meanings than morphologically
   complex words (i.e. lujvo)

then I agree with you, though I don't think Lojbab would accept it as
legitimate as an ongoing guiding principle.

> The former
> can be done in lojban in a myriad of ways. The only way of which I am
> aware for doing the latter is zi'o, and I feel a bit weird using it (not
> that I do, but on the rare (or even hypothetical?) occasions I did, I'd
> feel a bit weird) - it's like saying, this is a travel route which has
> nothing to do with travelling whatsoever, or this is a species of a dog,
> but it is not possible, or even conceivable, that there could be
> something we would classify as such (indeed, there is nothing to
> classify, as that species is not used for classification at all)... Does
> this make any sense? Or even in contexts where it fits much better than
> in these examples, it still feels weird, because it forces you to forget
> something already expressed, without acknowledging it as an error (as
> would be the case if si/sa/su were used).

{zi`o} *is* weird, I most certainly agree. Mind you, English does
something similar. For example, in English one can say things like:

    the object raises to subject-position.

-- i.e. "raise", which is the causative of anticausative "rise", is
converted into an anticausative. In other words, it is being used
with the meaning "zi`o raises the object".

One of the main reasons why I was in favour of zi`o was for cases
like the albino tiger (tigri be fe zi`o) or the lanci be zi`o where
the gismu place structure seems excessively restrictive. It's a way
of implicitly saying "sorry about this unneeded sumti place". I think
it is too easy to forget that calling something a tirxu involves not
only claiming that it is a bigcat, but also that it has markings on
its coat. So a panther, for example, is not a tirxu, and nor is a
tiger without coat markings. Using "tirxu be fe zi`o" is a way of
talking about tigers without excluding those that happen to lack
stripes.

In an ideal world, in accordance with the principle outlined at the
start of this message, gismu would have more general, inclusive
definitions. So {tirxu} would have no x3, and if you wanted to talk
about their stripes you could talk about {barna zei tirxu}.

> > > but (mainly) for the reasons stated above I like and's
> > > definition, the one I believe lojbab. basically agrees with, even if it
> > > does significantly differ from English usage (as well as that of any
> > > other natural language I know).
> >
> > I wish I knew which definition you meant.
>
> The one pretty much like extended birti...
>
> x1 is convinced of x2 about x3 by (epistemology, arguments, metaphysics,
> whatever, my memory fails me, my mailbox gone with the wind...) x4

Aha: I think you mean my rewording of the gi`uste's version.