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.