History: lange'u

Source of version: 1 (current)

The ''lange'u'' example is in ((the Book)) on pp. 290-291, chapter 12.14.

----

I think it sounds like an especially wooly dog, or maybe a genetic cross between a dog and a sheep.

This is ''not'' a ((seljvajvo)) lujvo in the meaning of ''sheepdog''; it is anomalous.

I would use langumtro. The ''gerku'' part is probably redundant in most contexts.

...except the most important ones!  A ''lamguntro'' could be a fence around a sheep pen.  --((John Cowan))

Then say enough to be clear when it matters! But if it's clear what you're talking about just ''gerku'' or ''jitro'' is probably better ((Lojban Style)).

The idea of ''seljvajvo'' is not that you can determine what a lujvo means by its components, but that you can determine its __place structure__ by its components. ''jitro'' wouldn't contribute any places to the place structure. --((rab.spir))

What in the world is the point of knowing the place structure without knowing the meaning (=what the relationship is between the components)!? If you have to guess at the meaning, the lujvo will most likely become a ((malglico)) mess. -- ((Adam))

* If you have to guess at the meaning, it's because you're using lujvo and that's how they work. (Didn't you recently object to ''le'' as well? ''No, I've never objected to "le".'' Your ideas are many years too late.) The idea of lujvo is that they have a commonly-accepted definition, and that if you happen to not know the definition the rafsi will at least give you a good guess. The rafsi do __not__ define the lujvo.
** No, the ((gismu deep structure)) does. The rafsi should be as close to the gismu deep structure as possible.
* The only thing which precisely specifies the meaning is a ((gismu deep structure)): ''gerku je jai seji'o lanme'', or if you don't mind getting sumti involved, ''gerku beseji'o lo lanme''.
** Right, so why do you support deviating from the rafsi which most closely reflect the gismu deep structure? The closer the rafsi stick to the GDS the easier it is to guess the meaning. A lujvo with no elided rafsi can only have a couple of possible meanings. One with elided rafsi has to choose from a pontentially infinite number of meanings, and if there are a lot of lujvo like that, then we all have some major (and unnecessary) dictionary memorizing to do. ''A side note on gismu deep structures: the gismu deep structure is an unambiguous phrasing of the tanru/lujvo, and contains no tanru or sumti tcica (which simply are replaced by another gismu), and all the sumti necessary. ("je" should really be "gi'e", but since there's really no confusion it doesn't make a huge difference.)''
* Also, ((seljvajvo)) couldn't give you the place structure without the meaning. Knowing the meaning beforehand is necessary in order to use seljvajvo, and therefore invoking seljvajvo while arguing about the meaning of a word makes no sense. This isn't a mysterious art; it's all there in chapter 12 of the book. --((rab.spir))
** I don't think I understand what you're saying. I choose an unambiguous structure such as ''gerku gi'e jitro lo gunma be loi lanme'', which then becomes the ((gismu deep structure|GDS)) and the meaning. It is then a straightforward process to turn it into a tanru, ''lanme gunma jitro gerku'', and from there into a clear lujvo, ''langumtroge'u''. I can use the ((seljvajvo)) rules on each seltau-tertau pair to come up with the place structure for the whole thing. Because I went strictly according to this proceedure, someone else seeing the lujvo for the first time can reconstruct the GDS with a minimal amount of guessing, and can use it perfectly, since they know its exact definition. They don't have to worry that meaning has been restricted or completely changed by elided rafsi.

Can I at this point remind people of the difference between sense (''smuni'') and reference (''se sinxa'')? The practical result of seljvajvo may indeed be deriving the place structure; but this is only possible because you've already isolated a particular sense (X be Y, X be lenu Y, X je Y, etc.) -- nitcion.

''Do you care to elaborate on this?''

The classic Frege example of the evening star and the morning star. They have different definitions (the star that appears in the evening, the star that appears in the morning), but as we found out later on, the same referent (Venus). The place structure helps narrow down the reference of the lujvo; the underlying relation (((gismu deep structure))), I contend, narrows down the sense, and is the cause rather than the effect here.

This means of course that Frege also enters the ''Lojban and Logic'' links. :-) -- nitcion
History: lange'u

Source of version: 1 (current)

Search Lojban Resources
