History: gismu that are hard to decipher

Source of version: 2 (current)

Some ''((gismu))'' are hard to understand from their official definitions. See also ((Misleading Gismu Definitions)). * ''talsa'' x1 (person) challenges x2 at/in property x3 ** In what sense of "challenge"? If it's some kind of contest or dispute, why is it over a quality? Does this mean a challenge to display some information? Does it mean that x1 has almost as much x3 as x2 does (then why restrict to a person)? I can't make sense of it at all! What do you think it means? *** ''I challenge you to a game of chance'' means that I think I am luckier than you, and thus challenge you in the property of luck. ''I challenge you to a duel'' means that I think I am a better fencer/fusileer/whatever than you, and intend to back it up. * ''xamgu'' x1 (object/event) is good/beneficial/nice/[[acceptable] for x2 by standard x3 ** What is the selection restriction on x2? "For" is vague, it could mean a person, property, event, or almost anything. The ''((cmavo))'' list gives ''seva'u'' as "with beneficiary", apparently meaning that a typical value for xamgu x2 is a person. But that doesn't make sense to me; I see "benefiting a person" is an example of raising from, say, "benefiting the goals of a person". To me ''xamgu'' only makes sense with x2=a goal (a desire, a need, that kinda thing). *** Why can it benefit a person's goals but not the person? To me, it makes more sense to benefit a person. Often, when one is benefitted, it's not a goal specifically. The only tricky part is deciding whether something is beneficial or detrimental in the end. "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." However, that does not mean that we can't claim that something benefits a person. -- mi'e ((bancus)). ** ((The Book)) sez that x2 is "the person for whom it is good". See Chapter 5 section 7. Many ''gismu'' concepts--perhaps most of them--are unclear in extent. The one I've been thinking about lately is ''mifra'': "x1 is encoded/cipher text of plain-text x2 by code/coding system x3". That sounds like it's written to include mainly secret codes. I'm tempted to think that any protocol for using symbols is a ''te mifra'', including languages. ''mi'e ((jezrax))'' * lo'e mifra cu mipri le notci loi na'e ve notci be fo ri .i lo'e bangu cu na go'i .iku'i roda naku zo'u ledu'u da bangu cu natfe ledu'u da mifra .ibo mu'a le bangu no'u la navaxos. ca le remoi ke barda jamna cu co'e --mi'e ((.djorden.)) We'll have to decide by using 'em.