i think this is too much. First we need to put all elementary particle
into one table with their places defined.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahngu1CNj7wddDZBRzgwMm1EWlpKU
EJRcTQtUGNCMFE&usp=drive_web#gid=8

I suggested boson as jbozoni etc.

Comment #2: Re: ko sisti

Wuzzy (Tue Jan 14 14:31:44 2014)

gleki wrote: > i think this is too much. I fully agree. Besides: Am I the only one around here who uses the vote system? ;-( > I suggested boson as jbozoni etc. Maybe for Higgs-Boson: kantrxigzo, xigz zei kantrbozoni, xigz zei jbozoni, etc. Pick your favourite. :) I won’t add these words by myself, since this clearly is not my area of expertise. ;-)

Comment #3: Re: ko sisti gleki (Tue Jan 14 14:42:54 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > gleki wrote: > > i think this is too much. > I fully agree. > Besides: Am I the only one around here who uses the vote system? ;-( > > > I suggested boson as jbozoni etc. > Maybe for Higgs-Boson: kantrxigzo, xigz zei kantrbozoni, xigz zei > jbozoni, etc. Pick your favourite. :) > > I won’t add these words by myself, since this clearly is not my area of > expertise. ;-) I think it's unnecessary to emphasize that Higgs boson is a boson. Lengthy names are unlikely to be used by lojbanic space travellers. Comment #5: Re: ko sisti Curtis W Franks (Wed Jan 15 05:28:46 2014) > Maybe for Higgs-Boson: kantrxigzo That is an option for the boson of course, but what about the mechanism, the field, etc.? How do you express pure, straight Higgsness without gaining a family of fu'ivla? Besides, if we have kantrxigzo and no xigzo, why not just shorten it to xigzo anyway (along the lines of going up the types of fu'ivla, but resulting in a gismu rather than remaining a fu'ivla)? It is justifiable to have gismu space be occupied partially by fundamental constituents of reality if we can have various words for type of alcohol. Gismu can be used in compounds in ways that other brivla cannot. Some other physical fundamentals (and not-so-fundamentals) have gismu. The only points of contention that I can see are a lack of other gismu for the fundamental interactions (about which I have thought, trust me) and the place structure of these brivla (especially trying to obtain consistency among them). So, what place structure would you propose? The form is attested for on the Lojban Wikipedia, by the way. I was merely recording here its usage there.

Comment #4: Re: ko sisti

Curtis W Franks (Wed Jan 15 05:13:49 2014)

There are already entries for a number of elementary particles and "light", "electricity", "magnet", "space", "time" have their own gismu. Surely the other fundamental interactions deserve equal footing? Why have a word for "cat" if you do not have a basic word for each of the building blocks of reality? We had the space for it, so we should use it. This is supposed to be a list of words, and nothing is stopping the addition of important gismu. The fundamentals of reality are, pretty much by definition, objectively important and it is a travesty that the original Lojban gi'uste did not include these words. I would rather lack a word for "tiger" when I have "cat" than lack "Higgs" when I have "quantum". In writing a textbook on physics in Lojban, nothing short of a short one-word name for such a thing is acceptable. One also would desire being able to compound it easily and without worrying overmuch about the grammaticality of how they do so. Gismu are easy and therefore ideal for such a purpose. But I will discuss additions proposed before adding them in the future. But, really, such words should be given priority. And gismu space is not quite hallowed ground. I dislike jbozoni for two reasons: 1) it implies "jbo"/Lojban (even if it need not do so), 2) "boson" is named after Bose, the name of whom would be transcribes as "bocus". Additionally, my proposal of kantrbocuni is no less immediately clear than jbozoni. As many people have said, if you do not like a word, do not use it. Synonyms are fine too. What would you propose the structure of such a fundamental entity in our universe be? Recall that particles and not merely particles, and besides the Higgs mechanism and field are just as important as any given excitation of the latter.

Comment #6: Re: ko sisti gleki (Wed Jan 15 06:08:45 2014) krtisfranks wrote: > Could you please write down the full table of particles and fill it so that we see that your proposal is with accordance with the names of other particles? You may start with my table for instance. I used pseudo-suffix -ino for sparticles for instance. Instead of jbozoni one might think of boznoni, bocnoni, sbocnoni etc. Comment #7: Re: ko sisti gleki (Wed Jan 15 06:11:03 2014) krtisfranks wrote: > 2) "boson" is named after Bose, the name of whom would be transcribes as "bocus". Are we to find the true etymology here or to make the word recognizable by most to'e mugle ? Comment #9: Re: ko sisti Curtis W Franks (Thu Jan 16 00:12:09 2014) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > 2) "boson" is named after Bose, the name of whom would > be transcribes as "bocus". > > Are we to find the true etymology here or to make the word recognizable by > most to'e mugle ? Hahaha, good point. I was thinking more along the lines of someone who has been educated about quantum mechanics in Lojban (without, necessarily, contact with non-Lojbanic physicists). I would prefer "correcting" it where one can. And someone who comes into Lojban to talk about Q. Mech. would simply have to learn its words for the same stuff, just like any other foreign language word. But I can see how other options are justified and probably would seem more natural. Comment #8: Re: ko sisti Wuzzy (Wed Jan 15 18:03:10 2014) krtisfranks wrote: > As many people have said, if you do not like a word, do not use it. > Synonyms are fine too. Ugh. You are right. And I better keep my mouth shut in this discussion for now since this is clearly not my area of expertise. Comment #10: Re: ko sisti Curtis W Franks (Thu Jan 16 00:13:57 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > As many people have said, if you do not like a word, do not use it. > > Synonyms are fine too. > Ugh. You are right. > And I better keep my mouth shut in this discussion for now since this is > clearly not my area of expertise. No, please do discuss. Talk is good. I am sorry for having offended anyone or done something incredibly wrong. I should have thought about it first and got it approved by at least one other person zo'o. I will try to be better from now on.

Comment #11: Re: ko sisti

Curtis W Franks (Sun Jul 6 03:16:17 2014)

gleki wrote: > i think this is too much. First we need to put all elementary particle > into one table with their places defined. > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahngu1CNj7wddDZBRzgwMm1EWlpKU > EJRcTQtUGNCMFE&usp=drive_web#gid=8 > > I suggested boson as jbozoni etc. I have (without editing this definition) been treating the Higgs mechanism as I have been treating gravitation (grava) and other fundamental interactions (since the mediator is a elementary boson to the best of our knowledge; not that while its spin is 0*hbar and spin of the other discovered bosons that mediate fundamental interactions are 1*hbar, the spin of the graviton is expected to be 2*hbar). The Higgs boson is not the only thing that is xigzo. Thus, I think that this word is justified and its gismu nature is too (if we consider the other interactions deserving of gismu too (and I do opine so)). I also do not think that this word in anyway gets in the way of the rest of the nomenclature.

Comment #12: Re: ko sisti Curtis W Franks (Sun Jul 6 03:37:40 2014) krtisfranks wrote: > I have (without editing this definition) been treating the Higgs mechanism > as I have been treating gravitation (grava) and other fundamental > interactions (since the mediator is a elementary boson to the best of our > knowledge; not that while its spin is 0*hbar and spin of the other *note [Typo] > discovered bosons that mediate fundamental interactions are 1*hbar, the > spin of the graviton is expected to be 2*hbar). The Higgs boson is not I was saying that the difference is bosonic nature betwixt the Highs and the photon, the W_(±) and Z_0 bosons, and gluons is not conceptually great enough to justify treating them differently since the graviton is treated as the latter four are and is somewhat similarly different therefrom. the > only thing that is xigzo. Thus, I think that this word is justified and > its gismu nature is too (if we consider the other interactions deserving > of gismu too (and I do opine so)). I also do not think that this word in > anyway gets in the way of the rest of the nomenclature. [Except for the fact that we can be briefer and more "obvious" with the meaning of lujvo (rather than zi'evla). For example, xigyka'u would be "Higgs boson" (like tsabyka'u would be "gluon").]