Talk:BPFK Section: gismu Issues
Archived Tiki forum discussion for BPFK Section: gismu Issues. Original authors, UTC times, and post IDs are retained below.
BPFK Section: gismu Issues (Tiki thread #2007)
Wiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
JohnCowan · 2004-08-13 08:02 UTC · Tiki post #2008 (reply to #2007)
> 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 [email protected] has so much been paid by so many http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few!" (pace Winston Churchill) http://www.reutershealth.comWiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
xorxes · 2004-08-13 20:53 UTC · Tiki post #2021 (reply to #2007)
> > 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!
Wiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
rlpowell · 2004-08-13 20:53 UTC · Tiki post #2023 (reply to #2007)
> > 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.
-RobinWiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
xorxes · 2004-08-13 21:32 UTC · Tiki post #2026 (reply to #2007)
> 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.
Wiki page BPFK Section: gismu Issues changed
rlpowell · 2004-08-13 21:40 UTC · Tiki post #2027 (reply to #2007)
> > 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)
[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.
-RobinBPFK Section: gismu Issues (Tiki thread #6166)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
arj · 2007-05-18 23:31 UTC · Tiki post #6167 (reply to #6166)
BPFK Section: gismu Issues
PierreAbbat · 2008-10-22 12:18 UTC · Tiki post #7368 (reply to #6166)
> 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.
PierreBPFK Section: gismu Issues (Tiki thread #7366)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
arj · 2008-10-22 09:10 UTC · Tiki post #7367 (reply to #7366)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-23 18:56 UTC · Tiki post #7369 (reply to #7366)
- jarki: 2x cinla under 'see also'
- jbari: 2x grute
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-23 19:13 UTC · Tiki post #7370 (reply to #7366)
Re: Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-24 21:26 UTC · Tiki post #7371 (reply to #7366)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-24 21:58 UTC · Tiki post #7372 (reply to #7366)
"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 species[1] — 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.Re: Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-24 22:48 UTC · Tiki post #7373 (reply to #7366)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-28 22:44 UTC · Tiki post #7410 (reply to #7366)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-28 22:46 UTC · Tiki post #7411 (reply to #7366)
Re: BPFK Section: gismu Issues
sarefo · 2008-10-31 22:35 UTC · Tiki post #7449 (reply to #7366)
