- 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 "zi'ai"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #2:
Re: pe'ai
|
Jonathan (Mon Jun 15 05:40:48 2015)
|
Yes, I have seen pe'ai, but I think zai'e / zi'ai has several advantages over it:
1. Most gismu are meant to have la?c meanings by default. Using simple terms like "block", "set", or "group" (or even say, "flying" in Magic the Gathering) for a technical, specialized purpose is the realm of jargon, and as such, should receive the unnegated form.
2. The proposed rafsi is meant as a way to disambiguate if a jargon word should "trickle down" to the mainstream, or if several fields that use the same jargon word intersect within a context, causing potential polysemy/ambiguity. For example, let's say (zai'e girzu) "group" has gained a very specialized meaning within the context of computers. Then, the lujvo (samzamgri) would then refer unambiguously to this meaning.
|
-
Comment #3:
Re: pe'ai
|
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jun 15 17:31:20 2015)
|
spheniscine wrote: > Yes, I have seen pe'ai, but I think zai'e / zi'ai has several > advantages over it: > > 1. Most gismu are meant to have la?c meanings by default. Using simple > terms like "block", "set", or "group" (or even say, "flying" in Magic the
> Gathering) for a technical, specialized purpose is the realm of jargon, and > as such, should receive the unnegated form. > > 2. The proposed rafsi is meant as a way to disambiguate if a jargon word > should "trickle down" to the mainstream, or if several fields that use the > same jargon word intersect within a context, causing potential > polysemy/ambiguity. For example, let's say (zai'e girzu) "group" has gained > a very specialized meaning within the context of computers. Then, the lujvo > (samzamgri) would then refer unambiguously to this meaning.
1. I was trying to maintain similarity with pe'a. The definition bein reversed from this one has its advantages, and the very fact that lay speak is default (if it is, especially with non-gismu brivla) could even be seen as justification for the unreversed definition as much as the it is for the reversed one.
2. I am not sure that rafsi are really necessary (why not just make the lujvo and then tag it with a jargon marker?), but I can imagine in some cases that it might (maybe an internal jargon marker would make it mean something different from an external one). In any case, if a rafsi is desired, pe'ai has options as well: -pep-, -pef-, and -peg- for a start. I do recognize that marking for jargon within lujvo would be easier in the reversed definition, so if that is seen as more useful, then the definition should be reversed.
I really do not care overly much which word is used for this purpose. I just want a word to exist for it. But st present, the conflicting definitions for this word make it less than desirable to me.
|
-
|
Comment #4:
Re: pe'ai
|
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jun 15 17:33:58 2015)
|
spheniscine wrote: > Yes, I have seen pe'ai, but I think zai'e / zi'ai has several > advantages over it: > > 1. Most gismu are meant to have la?c meanings by default. Using simple > terms like "block", "set", or "group" (or even say, "flying" in Magic the
> Gathering) for a technical, specialized purpose is the realm of jargon, and > as such, should receive the unnegated form. > > 2. The proposed rafsi is meant as a way to disambiguate if a jargon word > should "trickle down" to the mainstream, or if several fields that use the > same jargon word intersect within a context, causing potential > polysemy/ambiguity. For example, let's say (zai'e girzu) "group" has gained > a very specialized meaning within the context of computers. Then, the lujvo > (samzamgri) would then refer unambiguously to this meaning.
1. I guess that abother issue with me is that I very commonly use words in a technical sense in English, so it is more useful to me to explicitly mark when I mean them to be not-technical than when they are. Anyone working in a field would probably develop such a habit as well.
|
-
Comment #5:
Re: pe'ai
|
Jonathan (Mon Jun 15 18:17:27 2015)
|
Sufficiently specialized lujvo or zi'evla with very specific definitions will not need to be marked. I'm only proposing marking use of common words, typically gismu, in a technical manner. Technically, when one does that, they are sense-shifting it from a broad, laic term, to a more specialized, technical one. Thus, marking it is desirable, so that it can be defined within that particular technical field.
|
-
|
Comment #6:
Re: pe'ai
|
Jonathan (Mon Jun 15 19:27:06 2015)
|
Addintionally, basing it on pe'a brings up another confounding factor. Sometimes, the technical sense of a word *is* also metaphorical. It'd be confusing for something to be both pe'a and pe'ainai
Take this hypothetical situation; we are Lojbanist scientists back in the 1960's, working on this newfangled machine called a "computer", and we just invented the "computer mouse".
We could call it (smacu pe'a); but the problem is that (pe'a) is inherently fuzzy; we can't assign any one meaning to it, even within the very narrow context of being inventors of a bleeding-edge technology that we have no idea of its future potential.
However, we can assign a meaning to (zai'e smacu) within this particular narrow context of computer science. We don't even need the (pe'a), because by assigning it the jargon meaning, we have divorced it from its original meaning. We also don't care if anyone else assigns a meaning to (zai'e smacu) while working on something completely different; all we care about is that within this particular field, we have assigned one meaning to it.
Then fast forward a few decades. Computers become a very big thing, and have gained mainstream acceptance. We've even added the gismu skami to the dictionary. Thus, laypeople have a need to talk about computer mice. Thus, they can take (zai'e smacu), turn it to (zamsmacu), then add the rafsi for skami, making (samyzamsmacu). Then after some amount of high-frequency usage, they may just drop the -zam- rafsi altogether, making (samsmacu).
|
-
|
Comment #7:
Re: pe'ai
|
Jonathan (Tue Jun 16 06:08:25 2015)
|
I'm also open to the idea of having both zai'e/zi'ai *and* pe'ai. pe'ai may still be useful as a sentence discursive meaning "In layman's terms", or to mark a term as specifically laic in contexts where many words have already been narrowed to be specific technical terms, as you note.
|
-
|
Comment #8:
Re: pe'ai
|
Jonathan (Tue Jun 16 06:24:23 2015)
|
Though I suppose that could be just (zi'ainai), as I don't expect that sense to be used repeatedly like zai'e/zi'ai; just to mark either entire sentences/statements, or single words.
|
-
|
Comment #9:
Re: pe'ai
|
Jonathan (Tue Jun 16 06:29:29 2015)
|
I can also see zai'e/zi'ai being used even for things like unassigned reljvo, as it might be undesirable to actually "book" the reljvo on JVS for something that only has meaning within one particular game, e.g.
|
-
|
|
|
|