Talk:BPFK Section: gismu Issues

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search

Posted by arj on Wed 22 of Oct., 2008 09:10 GMT posts: 953 sarefo_work2 on IRC says that, in the notes for jalra, in "while roaches are an order unto themselves, they are part of Orthoptera, which includes grasshoppers, crickets, etc.", "part of" should be replaced with "closely related to".

Pierre should probably vet this.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Thu 23 of Oct., 2008 18:56 GMT posts: 8 minor typos in the dict database:

jarki: 2x cinla under 'see also' jbari: 2x grute Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Thu 23 of Oct., 2008 19:13 GMT posts: 8 hmm, looks like there is no edit feature?

pleji is double in see also of jdima.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Fri 24 of Oct., 2008 21:26 GMT posts: 8 cumki: "see also cumki" Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Fri 24 of Oct., 2008 21:58 GMT posts: 8 notes in dict entry of curni:

"the generalization to invertebrate is because almost all multicellular invertebrates are indeed wormlike."

hell, no! from wikipedia:

"An invertebrate is an animal lacking a vertebral column. The group includes 98% of all animal species1 — all animals except those in the Chordate subphylum Vertebrata (fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals)."

so, sea urchins, beetles, sponges, jellyfish, spiders, you name it.

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Fri 24 of Oct., 2008 22:48 GMT posts: 8 cliva: 2* litru Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Tue 28 of Oct., 2008 22:44 GMT posts: 8 milxe: see also traji is twice. Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Tue 28 of Oct., 2008 22:46 GMT posts: 8 also in mutce, traji occurs twice. Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by sarefo on Fri 31 of Oct., 2008 22:35 GMT posts: 8 sfubu: 2x farlu

Earlier

Posted by arj on Fri 18 of May, 2007 23:31 GMT posts: 953 The notes for "salci" has "funeral (= mrobixsla)". This is unfortunate, because a jvojva interpretation of "mrobixsla" is that it refers to a participant in the celebration, not the celebration itself.

-arj

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: gismu Issues

Posted by PierreAbbat on Wed 22 of Oct., 2008 12:18 GMT posts: 324 On Wednesday 22 October 2008 05:10:17 arj wrote: > sarefo_work2 on IRC says that, in the notes for jalra, in "while roaches > are an order unto themselves, they are part of Orthoptera, which includes > grasshoppers, crickets, etc.", "part of" should be replaced with "closely > related to". > > Pierre should probably vet this.

The closest relatives of cockroaches are termites, with the closest extant relatives being the cockroach Cryptocercus, which eats wood, and the termite Mastotermes, which lays egg cases. Some taxonomists classify both cockroaches and termites as one order.

The next closest order is the mantises, which I call {mantode} ({mantida} would refer to only one family and is easy to mistake for {manti da}). These and the cockroaches and termites constitute the Dictyoptera.

How closely the Orthoptera are related to any of them appears to be disagreed among taxonomists. There are some references to an infraclass, or superorder, Orthopteroidea, but the classification currently listed on Wikipedia places Orthoptera in Exopterygota sensu stricto.

So {mantyctijalra} should be retained, but if we say {pipyjalra} and {sagjalra}, they are like {xajyfi'e}, which isn't a fish.

Pierre

Posted by JohnCowan on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 08:02 GMT posts: 149

webmaster@lojban.org scripsit:

> I (Robin Powell) am of the opinion that the "set" places > in various gismu are un-necessary, and should be abolished (with > the obvious exception of gismu that are specifically about sets). > Any specification of a group should be acceptable in these places.

I don't think that's going to fly unless we have a list of which places you want to change. Sets were used there *because* they were the singularist view of a group.

-- Andrew Watt on Microsoft: John Cowan "Never in the field of human computing cowan@ccil.org has so much been paid by so many http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to so few!" (pace Winston Churchill) http://www.reutershealth.com

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT posts: 1912

John Cowan: > > I (Robin Powell) am of the opinion that the "set" places > > in various gismu are un-necessary, and should be abolished (with > > the obvious exception of gismu that are specifically about sets). > > Any specification of a group should be acceptable in these places. > > I don't think that's going to fly unless we have a list of which > places you want to change.

I find 22 gismu with places reserved exclusively for sets: slilu, bridi, kampu, simxu, steci, mupli, fadni, rirci, cnano, ralju, cuxna, sisku, kancu, girzu, ciste, liste, porsi, pluta, kruvi, linji, plita, kurfa.

Other gismu have places that mention sets, but they also allow other things there. For example, the place structure of {fenso} says that you can saw individuals together, or if you prefer you can saw a set together.

> Sets were used there *because* they were > the singularist view of a group.

But since there are examples of non-distributive places where the gi'uste allows normal individuals, there is no reason for these places to be restricted exclusively to sets.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 20:53 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 01:33:52PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > John Cowan: > > > I (Robin Powell) am of the opinion that the "set" places > > > in various gismu are un-necessary, and should be abolished (with > > > the obvious exception of gismu that are specifically about sets). > > > Any specification of a group should be acceptable in these places. > > > > I don't think that's going to fly unless we have a list of which > > places you want to change. > > I find 22 gismu with places reserved exclusively for sets: slilu, > bridi, kampu, simxu, steci, mupli, fadni, rirci, cnano, ralju, cuxna, > sisku, kancu, girzu, ciste, liste, porsi, pluta, kruvi, linji, plita, > kurfa. > > Other gismu have places that mention sets, but they also allow other > things there. For example, the place structure of {fenso} says that > you can saw individuals together, or if you prefer you can saw a set > together. > > > Sets were used there *because* they were the singularist view of a > > group. > > But since there are examples of non-distributive places where the > gi'uste allows normal individuals, there is no reason for these places > to be restricted exclusively to sets.

What he said.

More: jbini, bende (not kidding; read the notes), traji (the broken x4 place).

Note, interestingly, that girzu has a set-required place, but gunma does not. So it's not even consistent, that I can see. Amazingly, cmima is actually *unclear* as to whether the second argument must be a set.

Some words say "(x2, if a set, is completely specified)", which I'm fine with.

Note that, unlike xorxes, I *love* sets, and I love that Lojban has them as a primitive type (although we're missing an operator). But requiring sets as opposed to other types of groups seems silly in most cases.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 21:32 GMT posts: 1912

Robin: > More: jbini, bende (not kidding; read the notes), traji (the broken x4 > place).

{jbini} already allows for non-sets though. I missed {bende} because the restriction is not in the definition field. I don't know why I missed {traji}.

> Note, interestingly, that girzu has a set-required place, but gunma does > not.

I am happy with {gunma} now. x1 is the reified group, a single thing, and x2 are the individuals as individuals, many things, a non-distributive place. I couldn't make any sense of the place structure before understanding plurals a la McKay.

> So it's not even consistent, that I can see. Amazingly, cmima is > actually *unclear* as to whether the second argument must be a set.

{cmima} clearly says it's not only for sets. The difference between {cmima} and {se gunma} is that x1 is distributive in {cmima} (each member) and non-distributive in {se gunma} (all members together).

> Note that, unlike xorxes, I *love* sets,

I have nothing against lo cmaci selcmi.

> and I love that Lojban has them > as a primitive type

I don't like that.

> (although we're missing an operator).

You can use {ku'a gi ... ginai ...} for it, if it's the one I think you mean.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Fri 13 of Aug., 2004 21:40 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:29:51PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > Robin: > > More: jbini, bende (not kidding; read the notes), traji (the broken > > x4 place). > > {jbini} already allows for non-sets though.

It's unclear.

jbini bin bi'i between x1 is between/among set of points/bounds/limits x2 (set)/amidst mass x2 in property x3 (ka)

[http://www.lojban.org/tiki/x2%20(a%20complete%20set,%20generally%20ordered)%20defines%20the%3Cbr%20/%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20bounds/limits/range%20for%20x1 x2 (a complete set, generally ordered) defines the bounds/limits/range for x1];

The word "mass" is in there, but then it says "complete set".

> > So it's not even consistent, that I can see. Amazingly, cmima is > > actually *unclear* as to whether the second argument must be a set. > > {cmima} clearly says it's not only for sets.

I don't see the clarity you're seeing.

> > and I love that Lojban has them as a primitive type > > I don't like that. > > > (although we're missing an operator). > > You can use {ku'a gi ... ginai ...} for it, if it's the one I think > you mean.

I mean set subtraction. Assuming X - Y == X ku'a !Y, then yeah, that works.

-Robin