Zendo In Lojban
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:55:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > BTW, I think {gunma} means "consists of", not "contains". The
> > > x2 of gunma are all the constituents of x1. There's {selpau}
> > > or {selcmi} or {vasru} for "contains".
> >
> > "contains" in Zendo doesn't really mean "contains"; gunma was
> > suggested by kpreid, and it's really much better.
>
> I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one red
> piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I take
> {gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for.
Then you need to take that up with the gismu list. Everyone on IRC
at the time I asked (except me) said that the x2 of gunma need not
be a complete specification.
> In other words,
>
> if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:
>
> ko'a gunma ko'e joi ko'i
>
> "ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"
>
> and not
>
> ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i
>
> Which to me does not mean "ko'a contains ko'e and ko'a contains
> ko'i" but "ko'a consists of ko'e" and at the same time "ko'a
> consists of ko'i", which would only make sense if ko'e and ko'i
> are the same things.
You are, of course, correct that me usage of .e is wrong. Hardly
the first time. 
That doesn't mean that the x2 of gunma is a full specification,
though. Seperate issues.
-Robin