Robin's gadri Proposal
A> Well, skip concept and go directly to translating English (where concept talk usually ends up anyhow). I think then that there are many common English words we get at only through oblique places. Come to that, how do we add on the places that are there now if we lop them off. Is there, for example, a word for "out of material x" that is independent of {zbasu} ({marji} is no help here)? And, of course, the fact that {klama} is one concept does not mean that it is not composed of several — even five — concepts, into which it may be broken down.
B>Harrdly more restricted from a practical point of view; there is only one case that ever comes up when the materials place is inappropriate. And practicality, rather than raw semantics, was a guiding principle in gismu creation. That's not to say that the constructors didn't err sometimes — in both directions (though, admittedlly, mainly in havimg too many places).
C>Probably not, since there is neither origin nor destination nor vehicle, only route. So {klama} is not very good for "go" in a lot of cases (not news, since it already is said to cover "come" as well).
D> And put the blame squarely on {zbasu}'s demand for a material, which is the point of saying it in the first place.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Dropping plaaces from predicates creates problem in vocabulary
> since many concepts are to be found only as remote places in some other
> predicate.
A>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).
B>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
C>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.
D>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