WikiDiscuss

pc:
> Dropping plaaces from predicates creates problem in vocabulary
> since many concepts are to be found only as remote places in some other
> predicate.

I think it was a mistake to equate concepts with places. The concept
(one concept) is the relationship. {zbasu} is one concept, not three.
{klama} is one concept, not five.

> I suspect the gismu list (well, maybe we can do some of them with
> lujvo) would have to more than double to accomodate all the concepts that
> occur only in usually dropped places (logical language creators seem always
> to be lumpers, later workers seem usually to be splitters).

It seems to me that in this case it is the other way around. I would
like {zbasu} to lump "x1 makes x2 from x3" with "x1 makes x2", but
the creators assigned the more restricted concept to {zbasu} and didn't
provide a basic word for the wider concept.

> If we remove all the places bound conceptually to each basic predicate, we

> will not help much, since, for example, at least is bound to (so > is but not, I think, unless feet count).

I think feet are supposed to count as valid {xe klama}, but I'm not
sure you can say that the Earth klama around the Sun, for example.

> The standard claim about God creating the world ex nihilo takes place in a
> context of the assumption that God created the world and is merely a counter
> to the suggestion that It did it in a {ganzu} sort of way — or even a
> {zbasu} one. In that context, the {noda} with {zbasu} works even
> semantically, not just pragmatically.

Sure, if the claim of creation is made somehow else, {zbasu fi noda}
is perfectly acceptable to claim that there was no zbasuing going on.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail