My all-time pet peeve for that is traji, whose x4 was inexplicably pushed back for x2 and x3, violating the parallel with zmadu. It makes havoc with dikyjvo, of course. This I could convince noone on, even while we could still have changed the place structures — mi'e nitcion
This isn't an instance of Bloated Gismu Syndrome, but I agree. Most of the time when I see more than one place of anything based on traji, I'm extremely confused as to which place it's supposed to be filling. The comparison with mutce is bogus, in my opinion. I've heard of deciding which places are included based on comparisons with other gismu, but using a comparison with another gismu to fix the order when a different interpretation is so obviously better? It seems to be specific to "traji".
- Of course, my own argument on the place structure of traji was based on parallelism with zmadu rather than parallelism to mutce, but I see your point. — nitcion
- I thought that Lojban Central's argument was based on a parallelism to mutce, since supposedly ka zmadu and ka mleca are sumti of traji.
- Oh, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that my own primary motivation was probably that I did want traji to follow another gismu's ordering, but that was zmadu to me, not mutce. And I guess this means I don't like the x3 of traji after all. --nitcion
As far as I'm concerned, the place structure of "traji" is: "x1 is most among x2 in property x3 [in direction x4*]".
OK. But as far as I'm concerned (fundamentalism), the place structure of traji is set, and inviolable. Regrettable, but involable. — mi'e nitcion
Do you want to speak a language which throws a brick wall in front of you every 2-3 sentences or one which flows smoothly and naturally? — Adam
. *smile* I want to speak a language in which there is one commonly accepted and used place structure for traji, rather than Adam's-traji versus nitcion's-traji vs. Lojbab's-traji. I also want to speak a language in which we don't spend ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS arguing about the place structure of traji, when we haven't even worked out fa'a. So in answer to your question, yes, I'd rather the brick walls, if that means we all speak the same language. I'd rather a clumsy but unified Lojban, than a smooth Lojban Mark 1 and another smooth Lojban Mark 2 and a third smooth Lojban Mark 3. — nitcion, raising fundamentalist bugbears.
* It would be better just to have a separate gismu for "least". — Adam
[Please elaborate?] I understand now from your response above. traji = most, new gismu = least, drop the x3, right? — nitcion drop x4 in the "real" place structure
-- -- -----
Why not solve this with a lujvo, so you don't have to reassign a place structure?
raizma: traji zmadu
z1=t1 is most among z2=t4 in property z3=t2
(The z4 and t3 places cancel each other out, as they end up being ka ce'u traji and ka ce'u zmadu respectively. Nifty, isn't it?)
And of course, the separate word for "least":
rairme'a: traji mleca
z1=m1 is least among z2=m4 in property z3=m2
So exactly the place structures you wanted are provided by seljvajvo, at the expense of an extra syllable if you want to use these in larger lujvo.
.i do ba'e glekygau mi ba'o lo nandu djedi ki'e — mi'e nitcion
Nice try, but I don't like it for the same reason I don't like "me'anrai" for "least". These are basic concepts, and need a gismu. Still, I could almost live with it. (Not "unanalyzable concepts" but basic concepts in their usefulness for speaking.) — Adam
me'anrai? I've already got rairme'a right there. And me'anrai would give exactly the wrong place structure.
Anyway, I know it would be nice if this could be done with a single gismu - but the gismu list is the way it is. If you insist on attempting to change the gismu list, I suggest not taking over an existing gismu, but using unofficial gismu. Perhaps razma and rarme?
Okay, maybe. But remember that even the Book agrees that the above is the place structure for lujvo which end in -rai. — Adam
.... Because (yes, I'm coming clean), I thought it was obvious that -rai lujvo would be 'most', not 'least', and the comparandum should be the x2. I abide by this inconsistency, 'cause I hate traji, and if I'm going to propose a capricious place structure, I might as well do it for a whole entire class of 'em, where it's conspicuous and people can raise their objections right away. Yes, I am a hypocrite; you got me. (OTOH, John wasn't obligated to agree with me, but he did.) But I still think you can do that for lujvo, where there is some wiggle room in what the place structure will be, but not for gismu, where the place structure is baselined. — nitcion.