jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "tamsmi"

Comment #1: Fourth place.
Robin Lee Powell (Sun Nov 21 23:38:56 2004)

According to the ma'oste, there's a fourth place, "in property".

-Robin

Comment #2: Re: Fourth place.
Jorge Llambias (Mon Nov 22 11:31:35 2004)

rlpowell wrote:
> According to the ma'oste, there's a fourth place, "in property".

But where would it come from, and what would it mean?
There is already x3 for a property.

This lujvo's only reason of existence is to give
a source brivla for tai. simsa would have been
enough, but unforunately it lacks a "t" and the vowels
are in the wrong order. tai was based on tarmi
before there was a strict semantic relationship
between each BAI and its corresponding gismu. The idea
was that it mean "like" and such. When it was realized
that tarmi had the wrong place structure for this,
tamsmi was concocted. tamsmi will probably never
be used other than in a dictionary for the definition
of tai. (Notice: this is not an official or approved
story of how tamsmi came about.)

mi'e xorxes

Comment #3: Re: Fourth place.
Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 11:34:24 2004)

xorxes wrote:
> rlpowell wrote:
> > According to the ma'oste, there's a fourth place, "in property".
>
> But where would it come from, and what would it mean?
> There is already x3 for a property.

From "tai": (x1 resembles x2 sharing ideal form/shape x3 in property x4)

> This lujvo's only reason of existence is to give
> a source brivla for tai.

And se tai, te tai, and ve tai.

-Robin

Comment #4: Re: Fourth place.
Jorge Llambias (Mon Nov 22 11:41:59 2004)

rlpowell wrote:
> xorxes wrote:
> > rlpowell wrote:
> > > According to the ma'oste, there's a fourth place, "in property".
> >
> > But where would it come from, and what would it mean?
> > There is already x3 for a property.
>
> From "tai": (x1 resembles x2 sharing ideal form/shape x3 in property x4)

So how do x3 and x4 differ?

mi'e xorxes

Comment #5: Re: Fourth place.
Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 11:50:12 2004)

xorxes wrote:
> rlpowell wrote:
> > xorxes wrote:
> > > rlpowell wrote:
> > > > According to the ma'oste, there's a fourth place, "in property".
> > >
> > > But where would it come from, and what would it mean?
> > > There is already x3 for a property.
> >
> > From "tai": (x1 resembles x2 sharing ideal form/shape x3 in property
x4)
>
> So how do x3 and x4 differ?

da de tamsmi lo bolci lo ka bartu

"da resembles de in that it has the outer shape of a ball".

-Robin

Comment #6: Re: Fourth place.
Jorge Llambias (Mon Nov 22 12:22:06 2004)

rlpowell wrote:
> xorxes wrote:
> > rlpowell wrote:
> > > From "tai": (x1 resembles x2 sharing ideal form/shape x3 in property
> x4)
> >
> > So how do x3 and x4 differ?
>
> da de tamsmi lo bolci lo ka bartu
>
> "da resembles de in that it has the outer shape of a ball".

Wouldn't that be:

da .e de tamsmi lo bolci lo ka (makau) bartu (ce'u)
x and y resemble a ball in their outsides.

If x3 is not a property, then x1, x2 and x3 resemble
one another in property x4, but it is not clear
where that place structure comes from.

mi'e xorxes

Comment #7: Re: Fourth place.
Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 12:30:34 2004)

xorxes wrote:
> rlpowell wrote:
> > xorxes wrote:
> > > rlpowell wrote:
> > > > From "tai": (x1 resembles x2 sharing ideal form/shape x3 in
property
> > x4)
> > >
> > > So how do x3 and x4 differ?
> >
> > da de tamsmi lo bolci lo ka bartu
> >
> > "da resembles de in that it has the outer shape of a ball".
>
> Wouldn't that be:
>
> da .e de tamsmi lo bolci lo ka (makau) bartu (ce'u)
> x and y resemble a ball in their outsides.

No, definately not.

> If x3 is not a property, then x1, x2 and x3 resemble
> one another in property x4

Nope.

da tamsmi de lo bolci tu'a lo nenri .i ku'i da tamsmi de lo bliku tu'a lo
bartu

Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both resemble
an (idealized) ball?

Besidse, the point is that the x3 is a platonic ideal; nothing *really*
resembles it, it's more of a concept.

Where this place structure comes from, I have no idea, but clearly x3=t1,
and x4=s3.

-Robin

Comment #8: Re: Fourth place.
Jorge Llambias (Mon Nov 22 12:52:09 2004)

rlpowell wrote:
> da tamsmi de lo bolci tu'a lo nenri .i ku'i da tamsmi de lo bliku tu'a
lo
> bartu

Well, that would be:

da e de tamsmi lo bolci tu'a lo nenri i ku'i da e de
tamsmi lo bliku tu'a lo bartu

so that doesn't really make it more clear.

> Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both
resemble
> an (idealized) ball?

Why not? They both look like balls in their outsides.
What else could it mean to say that they resemble each
other in that they have the outer shape of a ball?

> Besidse, the point is that the x3 is a platonic ideal; nothing *really*
> resembles it, it's more of a concept.

But why make it so complicated? Why can't we just say
that x resembles a ball and y resembles a ball? What
do we gain by separating it into three places, x1, x2
and x3, so that x3 is only for platonic ideals?

> Where this place structure comes from, I have no idea, but clearly
x3=t1,
> and x4=s3.

But x4 has to be lo ka tarmi too. If they are dissociated,
then we have "x1 and x2 both have shape x3 and are
similar in property x4".

mi'e xorxes

Comment #9: Re: Fourth place.
Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 12:55:05 2004)

xorxes wrote:
> rlpowell wrote:
> > da tamsmi de lo bolci tu'a lo nenri .i ku'i da tamsmi de lo bliku tu'a
> lo
> > bartu
>
> Well, that would be:
>
> da e de tamsmi lo bolci tu'a lo nenri i ku'i da e de
> tamsmi lo bliku tu'a lo bartu
>
> so that doesn't really make it more clear.
>
> > Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both
> resemble
> > an (idealized) ball?
>
> Why not? They both look like balls in their outsides.

No, on their *insides*.

> What else could it mean to say that they resemble each
> other in that they have the outer shape of a ball?

Because they are round on the inside.

> > Besidse, the point is that the x3 is a platonic ideal; nothing
*really*
> > resembles it, it's more of a concept.
>
> But why make it so complicated?

Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it!

Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a fight?

-Robin

Comment #10: Re: Fourth place.
Jorge Llambias (Mon Nov 22 13:13:54 2004)

rlpowell wrote:
> xorxes wrote:
> > rlpowell wrote:
> > > Certainly in the first case you wouldn't say that da and de both
> > resemble
> > > an (idealized) ball?
> >
> > Why not? They both look like balls in their outsides.
>
> No, on their *insides*.

Right. The point is the same.

> > What else could it mean to say that they resemble each
> > other in that they have the outer shape of a ball?
>
> Because they are round on the inside.

All right: What else could it mean to say that they resemble each other in
that they have the inner
shape of a ball?

> > But why make it so complicated?
>
> Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it!
>
> Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a fight?

I don't care all that much how tamsmi ends up being
defined. As I said, it is unlikely that the word will
ever be actually used. But I won't write definitions
that I think are wrong just because they appear in
the ma'oste. Since we can have two competing
definitions here, there is no need to fight. People
who want to keep the ma'oste definition can vote for
it, and those who don't think it makes much sense can
vote for something else. I wouldn't even be sure how
to write the ma'oste definition in Lojban.

mi'e xorxes

Comment #11: Re: Fourth place.
Robin Lee Powell (Mon Nov 22 13:48:09 2004)

> > > But why make it so complicated?
> >
> > Because this is how the ma'oste currently defines it!
> >
> > Jesus, is a little backwards compatibility worth *this* much of a
fight?
>
> I don't care all that much how tamsmi ends up being
> defined. As I said, it is unlikely that the word will
> ever be actually used. But I won't write definitions
> that I think are wrong just because they appear in
> the ma'oste. Since we can have two competing
> definitions here, there is no need to fight. People
> who want to keep the ma'oste definition can vote for
> it, and those who don't think it makes much sense can
> vote for something else.

That's a lovely idea, except that the ma'oste defines "te tai" and "ve
tai", and I'm doing the section that has them.

> I wouldn't even be sure how
> to write the ma'oste definition in Lojban.

x1 cu simsa x2 fi'o tarmi x3 x4

-Robin

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Sun Nov 15 18:45:23 PST 2015.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?