baby words, sort of: catlu vs. zgana

105 views
Skip to first unread message

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Nov 6, 2011, 6:01:36 PM11/6/11
to lojba...@lojban.org

What's the difference here? In particular, what does {catlu}
actually mean? Is it just like {zgana} but without a particular
sense and conditions specified?

Which word is best for intent scrutiny? How would you emphasize
intent-ness there?

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false"
is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 6, 2011, 6:17:07 PM11/6/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com, lojba...@lojban.org
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> What's the difference here?  In particular, what does {catlu}
> actually mean?  Is it just like {zgana} but without a particular
> sense and conditions specified?

catlu = troci lo nu viska
zgana = troci lo nu ganse

> Which word is best for intent scrutiny?  How would you emphasize
> intent-ness there?

"Intent scrutiny" or "intense scrutiny"?

catlu/zgana both require intent.

I'm not sure what "intent scrutiny" means. I think "lanli" might be
better than catlu/zgana for "scrutinize".

"Intense scrutiny" could be "lo nu carmi lo ka lanli".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

vitci'i

unread,
Nov 6, 2011, 6:38:00 PM11/6/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On 11/06/2011 05:01 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> What's the difference here? In particular, what does {catlu}
> actually mean? Is it just like {zgana} but without a particular
> sense and conditions specified?
>
> Which word is best for intent scrutiny? How would you emphasize
> intent-ness there?
>
> -Robin

I read the gloss for {catlu} to have visual terzgana only.

djandus

unread,
Nov 6, 2011, 6:53:46 PM11/6/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com, lojba...@lojban.org

I'm not sure what "intent scrutiny" means. I think "lanli" might be
better than catlu/zgana for "scrutinize".

"Intense scrutiny" could be "lo nu carmi lo ka lanli".

Reading your question as "intense scrutiny" but with the desire to use the "inspects" interpretation of catlu for baby-words purposes, I'd imagine {tsali catlu} or {denmi catlu} would make sense, though if there is not a particular emphasis on the type of sensing, {lanli fi lo nu zgana} or similar definitely makes more sense to me.

({.i ta'o}, if the {denmo} bothers you, it bothers me too -- I was looking for a word for "focus", but {denmo} is as close as I could get. Given, {denmo jundi} makes a lot of sense to me.)

mu'o mi'e .djandus.
 

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Nov 7, 2011, 2:31:08 AM11/7/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:17:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >
> > What's the difference here? �In particular, what does {catlu}
> > actually mean? �Is it just like {zgana} but without a particular
> > sense and conditions specified?
>
> catlu = troci lo nu viska
> zgana = troci lo nu ganse

Wait, *what*? How the hell did {troci} get in there? Neither
definition implies "attempts to" in any way at all.

> > Which word is best for intent scrutiny? �How would you emphasize
> > intent-ness there?
>
> "Intent scrutiny" or "intense scrutiny"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intent , adj, sense #1

> catlu/zgana both require intent.
>
> I'm not sure what "intent scrutiny" means. I think "lanli" might
> be better than catlu/zgana for "scrutinize".

Ah! Thank you for that.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 7, 2011, 4:44:32 PM11/7/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:17:07PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>>
>> catlu = troci lo nu viska
>> zgana = troci lo nu ganse
>
> Wait, *what*?  How the hell did {troci} get in there?  Neither
> definition implies "attempts to" in any way at all.

The goal of catlu is viska, but it's possible to catlu and fail to viska.

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Nov 8, 2011, 2:52:32 AM11/8/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 06:44:32PM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:17:07PM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> >>
> >> catlu = troci lo nu viska
> >> zgana = troci lo nu ganse
> >
> > Wait, *what*? �How the hell did {troci} get in there? �Neither
> > definition implies "attempts to" in any way at all.
>
> The goal of catlu is viska, but it's possible to catlu and fail to
> viska.

*chuckle*

Come on, xorxes; we've been playing this game long enough that you
should know that you making a bare assertion like that isn't good
enough.

Again: I see no evidence at all in the definitions that what you
just said is actually, ya know, *true*. How do you justify it?

It would be really nice if, instead of making me drag the entire
chain of thought in your head out one link at a time, you would
generate the next 3 links or so and save us both some trouble.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 8, 2011, 6:56:41 AM11/8/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 06:44:32PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
>>
>> The goal of catlu is viska, but it's possible to catlu and fail to
>> viska.
>
> *chuckle*
>
> Come on, xorxes; we've been playing this game long enough that you
> should know that you making a bare assertion like that isn't good
> enough.
>
> Again: I see no evidence at all in the definitions that what you
> just said is actually, ya know, *true*.  How do you justify it?
>
> It would be really nice if, instead of making me drag the entire
> chain of thought in your head out one link at a time, you would
> generate the next 3 links or so and save us both some trouble.

I just didn't think I was saying anything so remarkable. The first
definition of "look" I find in
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/look is:
"to turn one's eyes toward something or in some direction in order to see"

If you think the relationship between "catlu" and "viska" is other
than the relation between "look" and "see", or if you can find a more
precise way to express that relation than with "troci", please do.

In any case, your original question was about how to distinguish
"catlu" from "zgana", and the important part of my reply was that
zgana is to ganse as catlu is to viska.

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Nov 8, 2011, 8:14:13 AM11/8/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Tuesday 08 November 2011 06:56:41 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> In any case, your original question was about how to distinguish
> "catlu" from "zgana", and the important part of my reply was that
> zgana is to ganse as catlu is to viska.

To me, to look is to direct a sense at something (for us it's sight, but I'd
accept a bat looking with its ears), and one can look at something and fail
to see it (a star in broad daylight). To observe or behold something requires
actual perception, and does not require direction. To examine or inspect
requires paying attention to details. To watch, which is in the definition of
both words, is to spend some time paying attention to something.

As to ganse vs. viska, one ganse a property but viska a thing. Genesis
1:4: ".i la cevni cu ga'ezga le gusni le ka xamgu"

There's a word "vi'azga" in the notes of "zgana". Presumably this is different
from "catlu".

Pierre
--
sei do'anai mi'a djuno puze'e noroi nalselganse srera

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 2:08:26 AM11/10/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 08:56:41AM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 06:44:32PM -0300, Jorge Llamb�as wrote:
> >>
> >> The goal of catlu is viska, but it's possible to catlu and fail
> >> to viska.
> >
> > *chuckle*
> >
> > Come on, xorxes; we've been playing this game long enough that
> > you should know that you making a bare assertion like that isn't
> > good enough.
> >
> > Again: I see no evidence at all in the definitions that what you
> > just said is actually, ya know, *true*. �How do you justify it?
> >
> > It would be really nice if, instead of making me drag the entire
> > chain of thought in your head out one link at a time, you would
> > generate the next 3 links or so and save us both some trouble.
>
> I just didn't think I was saying anything so remarkable.

As usual. :D

> The first definition of "look" I find in
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/look is: "to turn one's
> eyes toward something or in some direction in order to see"
>
> If you think the relationship between "catlu" and "viska" is other
> than the relation between "look" and "see", or if you can find a
> more precise way to express that relation than with "troci",
> please do.

AFA*I*CT, catlu and viska are pure synonyms; that's why I asked.

Ah, but I see how you're getting that out of catlu. Ok, yeah, I
think I'm with you.

While we're looking at those words, what the hell does "note that
English "look" often means a more generic "observe"" mean?, from the
catlu and viska definitions?

Michael Turniansky

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 11:56:24 AM11/10/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com


On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 08:56:41AM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
  Actually, that's what it says under "catlu" what it says under "viska" is the (more correct) "note that English "see" often means "look" or a more generic observe", or even "understand, know""   As in "I see you're getting taller", or "I see your point". Or, "I see that someone's been in the Halloween candy again".  I doubt "look" is used in those senses (although "look for" as in "I looked for signs of life, but he was dead" can))
         --gejsypa
 
 
           --

vitci'i

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 2:00:49 PM11/10/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On 11/10/2011 01:08 AM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> While we're looking at those words, what the hell does "note that
> English "look" often means a more generic "observe"" mean?, from the
> catlu and viska definitions?

I read it as a warning not to commit malgli by assuming that all senses
of "look" apply; catlu and viska are only ever visual.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 5:17:55 PM11/10/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
In English we have:

look - see
listen - hear
touch - feel
sniff - smell
taste - taste

where the second word in each pair describes an experience while the
first one describes an action one takes in order to have that
experience. ("taste" can work both ways, action "I tasted the soup to
see whether it needed more salt", or experience "I tasted something
funny in the soup". "smell" and "feel" too can work both ways.)

Lojban doesn't have gismu for most of those:

catlu - viska
----- - tirna
pencu - -----
----- - sumne
----- - -----

My understanding is that "zgana" and "ganse" were meant to be the
general words for each column, so we could have:

catlu - viska
kerzga - tirna
pencu - pilga'e
zbizga - sumne
tacyzga - tacyga'e

Or in fully regular form:

kalzga - kalga'e
kerzga - kerga'e
pilzga - pilga'e
zbizga - zbiga'e
tacyzga - tacyga'e

There are however two problems with all of this.

One problem is that all the words used to define "zgana" in English in
the gi'uste are used almost exclusively with sight, and as Pierre
pointed out they seem to mean something more like a prolonged
intentional viska than just directing some sense in order to perceive.
I believe this is just a case of bad gloss words, since English has no
convenient word for the intended concept. It is clear that despite the
gloss words, "zgana" is not restricted to sight, because it has a
place for the means of sensing.

The other problem is the property in x2 of ganse. I think gismu that
have a property argument and no argument for the thing with the
property are just wrong. Fortunately there are not many of them. My
policy is to just ignore the gi'uste about this.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 11, 2011, 6:48:25 AM11/11/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
2011/11/10 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

>
> Or in fully regular form:
>
> kalzga - kalga'e
> kerzga - kerga'e
> pilzga - pilga'e
> zbizga - zbiga'e
> tacyzga - tacyga'e

Those are the ones derived from the with-what, but there's also the
series derived from the what:

vinzga - vinga'e
snazga - snaga'e
te'uzga - te'urga'e
panzga - panga'e
vu'izga - vu'irga'e

at least one of which has actually been used.

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Nov 18, 2011, 3:15:44 AM11/18/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
This is really interesting stuff! Can you make sure it appears on
some appropriate BPFK page?

I completely agree with you about zgana, and I'm inclined to agree
with you about ganse; make sure they get notes in the gismu setion
please. How do you fix ganse when you ignore the gi'uste?

-Robin

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 18, 2011, 4:48:51 PM11/18/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> This is really interesting stuff!  Can you make sure it appears on
> some appropriate BPFK page?
>
> I completely agree with you about zgana, and I'm inclined to agree
> with you about ganse; make sure they get notes in the gismu setion
> please.

I'm not in much of a wiki-editing mood lately, so I'll leave that to
someone else.

> How do you fix ganse when you ignore the gi'uste?

Just remove "property" and "(ka)":

x1 [observer] senses/detects/notices stimulus x2 by means x3 under
conditions x4.

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Nov 18, 2011, 8:26:17 PM11/18/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Friday 18 November 2011 16:48:51 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Robin Lee Powell
> > How do you fix ganse when you ignore the gi'uste?
>
> Just remove "property" and "(ka)":
>
> x1 [observer] senses/detects/notices stimulus x2 by means x3 under
> conditions x4.

Wouldn't that break "ga'ezga"? I coined that lujvo for "perceives something to
have a quality" because "ganse" has a property place.

Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Nov 19, 2011, 9:47:44 AM11/19/11
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2011 16:48:51 Jorge Llambías wrote:
>>
>> x1 [observer] senses/detects/notices stimulus x2 by means x3 under
>> conditions x4.
>
> Wouldn't that break "ga'ezga"? I coined that lujvo for "perceives something to
> have a quality" because "ganse" has a property place.

I'd use kairga'e for that: x1 ganse lo nu x2 ckaji x3 kei x4 x5

But you could also not bring up properties: "lo cevni cu ganse lo nu
lo gusni cu xamgu".

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Jul 14, 2012, 5:53:06 AM7/14/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, November 11, 2011 3:48:25 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:
2011/11/10 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

>
> Or in fully regular form:
>
> kalzga - kalga'e
> kerzga - kerga'e
> pilzga - pilga'e
> zbizga - zbiga'e
> tacyzga - tacyga'e

Those are the ones derived from the with-what, but there's also the


series derived from the what:

vinzga - vinga'e
snazga - snaga'e
te'uzga - te'urga'e
panzga - panga'e
vu'izga - vu'irga'e

at least one of which has actually been used.

I suggest making valsi about senses as basic in this example (as you can touch something with your eye but it wouldn't be vision).
zgana fi lo nu viska   - viska
zgana fi lo nu tirna    - tirna
? - ? (tactile sense)
zgana fi lo nu sumne- sumne
? - ? (taste)

Although you might argue that my solution leaves two senses untranslated it's actually the matter of what your tongue is supposed to do.
Do you think that it necessarily must have the sense of taste?
ju'o some animals might taste something using their limbs.

Either we create two words for this basic senses (tactition, gustation) or clarify the meanings of those organs (skin, tongue).

It's your choice to use lujvo but my choice is to give definitions to those lujvo using deep gismu structure only.
It seems to be impossible. Two words for main senses are absent.

djandus

unread,
Jul 14, 2012, 4:32:54 PM7/14/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Friday, November 18, 2011 3:48:51 PM UTC-6, xorxes wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> This is really interesting stuff!  Can you make sure it appears on
> some appropriate BPFK page?
>
> I completely agree with you about zgana, and I'm inclined to agree
> with you about ganse; make sure they get notes in the gismu setion
> please.

I'm not in much of a wiki-editing mood lately, so I'll leave that to

somepony else.

Dude, did this really never get done?

I looked around and couldn't find anything, so I've made the following page and am editing it presently.
Somepony who knows where to put it, please find some page to link to it. 

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Jul 14, 2012, 4:37:26 PM7/14/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 01:32:54PM -0700, djandus wrote:
> On Friday, November 18, 2011 3:48:51 PM UTC-6, xorxes wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > This is really interesting stuff! Can you make sure it
> > > appears on some appropriate BPFK page?
> > >
> > > I completely agree with you about zgana, and I'm inclined to
> > > agree with you about ganse; make sure they get notes in the
> > > gismu setion please.
> >
> > I'm not in much of a wiki-editing mood lately, so I'll leave
> > that to somepony else.
> >
> Dude, did this really never get done?

I linked to the thread on the gismu issues page, a few hours ago.

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
.i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e
lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e
lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Aug 10, 2012, 9:48:53 AM8/10/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com, Jorge Llambías, Robin Powell
The scheme is still not complete. Let's put all sensory aspects into one table.
These are the predicate that we might get (I will give them temporary names in curly brackets).

{HEAR} - x1 hears object(e.g. musician)/event (e.g. concert) x2, listens to it and defines x2 as x3 (noisy, loud, sweet, lovely, romantic etc.)
{SEE} - x1 sees object/event x2, looks at x2 and defines it as x3 (green, that it looks ugly etc.)
{SMELL} - x1 smells object/event x2, observes x2 and defines it as x3 (e.g. flowery,pungent, musk)
{TASTE} - x1 tastes object/event x2, observes x2 and defines it as x3 (e.g. tasty, sweet,sour)
{TOUCH} - x1 touches x2, observes (tries) x2 and defines it as having texture x3 (e.g. rought)
As you can see we actually need valsi with three places. "observe" is a variation of each predicate that can be best expressed using additional {jundi}  or {zgana} as xorxes suggested.
This scheme is consistent. The only problem is that it doesn't correspond to the current mess of sensory gismu.

The only gismu that corresponds to this scheme is {te panci}.
{sumne} is a superfluous gismu.
{te tirna} is something that we can also place in every sensory gismu.
{vrusi} overlaps the senses of taste and smell.

This is something that definitely needs revision.
We have five senses and we must clearly express what we feel.
Currently Lojban lacks such power (except in the case of {te panci}).

la gleki

unread,
Aug 30, 2012, 12:41:02 PM8/30/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com, Jorge Llambías, Robin Powell


On Friday, August 10, 2012 5:48:53 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:
The scheme is still not complete. Let's put all sensory aspects into one table.
These are the predicate that we might get (I will give them temporary names in curly brackets).

{HEAR} - x1 hears object(e.g. musician)/event (e.g. concert) x2, listens to it and defines x2 as x3 (noisy, loud, sweet, lovely, romantic etc.)
{SEE} - x1 sees object/event x2, looks at x2 and defines it as x3 (green, that it looks ugly etc.)
{SMELL} - x1 smells object/event x2, observes x2 and defines it as x3 (e.g. flowery,pungent, musk)
{TASTE} - x1 tastes object/event x2, observes x2 and defines it as x3 (e.g. tasty, sweet,sour)
{TOUCH} - x1 touches x2, observes (tries) x2 and defines it as having texture x3 (e.g. rought)
As you can see we actually need valsi with three places. "observe" is a variation of each predicate that can be best expressed using additional {jundi}  or {zgana} as xorxes suggested.
This scheme is consistent. The only problem is that it doesn't correspond to the current mess of sensory gismu.

The only gismu that corresponds to this scheme is {te panci}.
{sumne} is a superfluous gismu.
{te tirna} is something that we can also place in every sensory gismu.
{vrusi} overlaps the senses of taste and smell.

This is something that definitely needs revision.
We have five senses and we must clearly express what we feel.
Currently Lojban lacks such power (except in the case of {te panci}).

Addition.
{te jvinu} also follows this pattern (thanks xorxes for noticing!)
{te skari} also follows this pattern.

However, tirna3, viska3 and skari4 can be easily expressed using {va'o}.

la gleki

unread,
Sep 1, 2012, 7:37:20 AM9/1/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com, Jorge Llambías, Robin Powell


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:41:02 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:


On Friday, August 10, 2012 5:48:53 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:
The scheme is still not complete. Let's put all sensory aspects into one table.
These are the predicate that we might get (I will give them temporary names in curly brackets).

{HEAR} - x1 hears object(e.g. musician)/event (e.g. concert) x2, listens to it and defines x2 as x3 (noisy, loud, sweet, lovely, romantic etc.)
{SEE} - x1 sees object/event x2, looks at x2 and defines it as x3 (green, that it looks ugly etc.)
{SMELL} - x1 smells object/event x2, observes x2 and defines it as x3 (e.g. flowery,pungent, musk)
{TASTE} - x1 tastes object/event x2, observes x2 and defines it as x3 (e.g. tasty, sweet,sour)
{TOUCH} - x1 touches x2, observes (tries) x2 and defines it as having texture x3 (e.g. rought)
As you can see we actually need valsi with three places. "observe" is a variation of each predicate that can be best expressed using additional {jundi}  or {zgana} as xorxes suggested.
This scheme is consistent. The only problem is that it doesn't correspond to the current mess of sensory gismu.

The only gismu that corresponds to this scheme is {te panci}.
{sumne} is a superfluous gismu.
{te tirna} is something that we can also place in every sensory gismu.
{vrusi} overlaps the senses of taste and smell.

This is something that definitely needs revision.
We have five senses and we must clearly express what we feel.
Currently Lojban lacks such power (except in the case of {te panci}).

Addition.
{te jvinu} also follows this pattern (thanks xorxes for noticing!)
{te skari} also follows this pattern.

However, tirna3, viska3 and skari4 can be easily expressed using {va'o}.


In order to reach maximum compatibility with the current gimste I can also suggest mergin x2 and x3 in my previous proposal getting 

Alternate proposal
{HEAR} - x1 hears object(e.g. musician/sound)/event x2 (e.g. mi tirna lo nu balzgibende cu cladu)
{SEE} - x1 sees object/event x2 (mi viska lo du'u lo tricu cu crino)
{SMELL} - x1 smells object/event x2 (mi sumne lo nu lo xrula cu cpina)
{TASTE} - x1 tastes object/event x2 (mi me'oi TASTE lo nu lo plise cu titla)
{TOUCH} - x1 touches x2 (mi me'oi TOUCH-FEEL lo nu lo sefta cu rufsu)

I also suggest that x2 in all 5 sensory gismu can be both an object and an event, thus allowing sumti-raising
so that we can say
mi tirna lo balzgibende
mi tirna lo cladu
mi tirna lo nu balzgibende cu cladu 

We have no gismu for TASTE ( {vrusi} has no place for experiencer) and TOUCH-FEEL ({pencu} is now what we need. when i touch {ko'a} with a screwdriver i touch-feel the screwdriver but touch {ko'a} ).
We would also need to allow in {sumne2} not only the object being smelled but the type of smell and abstraction for the combination of the object and it's smell.

la gleki

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 11:26:15 AM9/3/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com, Jorge Llambías, Robin Powell
Correction:
{pencu} is NOT what is needed. when i touch {ko'a} with a screwdriver i touch-feel the screwdriver but touch {ko'a}  

la gleki

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 10:17:16 AM9/13/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com, Jorge Llambías, Robin Powell
I have to make corrections. broda2 for sensory gismu is either the abstraction itself or the argument raised to sumti level. So the correct way to epxress the previous example would be 

mi tirna [tu'a] lo balzgibende
mi tirna lo nu cladu
mi tirna lo nu balzgibende cu cladu 

When we say "I see you" we actually mean "I see you standing/present in front of me/{co'e}/whatever". So {mi viska do} is just a handy emulation of natlangs when it should really be expressed as {mi viska tu'a do}. But as some lojbanists already do this illegal trick then let's make it official.

Therefore 
{mi ganse lo du'u crino} - I sense something as being green (i.e. I see it).
{mi ganse lo du'u lo cladu ku crino} -  I sense some loud object as green (i.e. I see it)
{mi ganse [tu'a] lo cladu}   - I sense some loud object [nothing is said how I sense it, it's might be a synonym of the previous example].

So there is no conflict between the object and the type of sensing it. In first case you use {tu'a} or just drop it. In the second case you use {lo su'u/nu/du'u/...}

MorphemeAddict

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 12:06:52 PM9/13/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:17 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:



When we say "I see you" we actually mean "I see you standing/present in front of me/{co'e}/whatever".

I don't understand why you think "I see you" is short for a longer phrase, especially one that is too specific and often simply not true. 

stevo

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/CM2jEXP7CeUJ.

la gleki

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 2:32:39 PM9/13/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com


On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:07:23 PM UTC+4, stevo wrote:


On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:17 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:



When we say "I see you" we actually mean "I see you standing/present in front of me/{co'e}/whatever".

I don't understand why you think "I see you" is short for a longer phrase, especially one that is too specific and often simply not true. 

I just think the sentence "I want [to eat] an apple" is somewhat parallel to "I see you [standing]". If in the first one we must use {tu'a} then the same should be true for the second sentence.

Jacob Errington

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 6:35:20 PM9/13/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Actually, those two examples don't relate as much as you'd like. Vision occurs when light reflects off an object into the eye, and is afterward processed by the brain (the brain does *a lot* of work to see). "Seeing events" doesn't make much sense, because sight is just a primitive based on capturing light. You see the object regardless of its state.

As for desire, this can only apply to states. Wanting an apple doesn't really mean *anything*. Seeing an apple does.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zjoOg-EmvKwJ.

la gleki

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 9:20:31 AM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com


On Friday, September 14, 2012 2:35:41 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
Actually, those two examples don't relate as much as you'd like. Vision occurs when light reflects off an object into the eye, and is afterward processed by the brain (the brain does *a lot* of work to see). "Seeing events" doesn't make much sense, because sight is just a primitive based on capturing light. You see the object regardless of its state.

OK, how would you say "I see an apple falling"? 

Ian Johnson

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 1:02:56 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
{mi viska lo plise noi farlu}. With some more twiddling you can force simultaneity if you care about it.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/4zuUxnJzg_oJ.

selpa'i

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 1:04:35 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Am 22.09.2012 19:02, schrieb Ian Johnson:
> {mi viska lo plise noi farlu}. With some more twiddling you can force
> simultaneity if you care about it.

Or just "mi viska lo nu lo plise cu farlu".

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku

la gleki

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 1:23:08 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com


On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:04:40 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
Am 22.09.2012 19:02, schrieb Ian Johnson:
> {mi viska lo plise noi farlu}. With some more twiddling you can force
> simultaneity if you care about it.

Or just "mi viska lo nu lo plise cu farlu".

Hey, yes and no. That's the point. If lo se viska can be an abstraction then my new gismu work. If not then I'll have to revert back to less backward-compatible 3-argument predicates. Both my suggestions can be found on http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+sensory+gismu

Ian Johnson

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 2:50:06 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
The whole point was that this approach has issues, or at least can be viewed as having issues. Frankly that point has some substance to it. Events don't emit or reflect light, so in a strict sense they cannot be "seen". Arguably {viska} should be our word for strict "seeing".


mu'o mi'e la latro'a

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Jacob Errington

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 3:04:01 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
I believe that it makes sense to {catlu} events, but not to {viska} them.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

selpa'i

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 3:14:17 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
Am 22.09.2012 20:50, schrieb Ian Johnson:
> The whole point was that this approach has issues, or at least can be
> viewed as having issues. Frankly that point has some substance to it.
> Events don't emit or reflect light, so in a strict sense they cannot
> be "seen". Arguably {viska} should be our word for strict "seeing".

Apart from that being very inconvenient, it's also very strange in my
opinion. In

mi viska lo plise noi farlu

how do you know that the apple is falling if you only see the apple but
not the event? Events are just objects in some relation to each other,
and that arrangement of objects reflects light like any other thing. You
can see a car moving by it reflecting light to you from different points
on its way, or an apple falling.


> Am 22.09.2012 21:04, schrieb Jacob Errington:
>> I believe that it makes sense to {catlu} events, but not to {viska} them.

Why?

Jacob Errington

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 3:17:48 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
{viska} is a primitive that doesn't require any cognition really. Events are on a level much higher than light just reflecting off surfaces into a sensor. I would argue that a camera can viska. By contrast, {catlu} inherently requires congition and probably volition too, and is definitely more appropriate for "seeing" events. 

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

Pierre Abbat

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 5:44:46 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
On Saturday, September 22, 2012 15:17:48 Jacob Errington wrote:
> {viska} is a primitive that doesn't require any cognition really. Events
> are on a level much higher than light just reflecting off surfaces into a
> sensor. I would argue that a camera can viska. By contrast, {catlu}
> inherently requires congition and probably volition too, and is definitely
> more appropriate for "seeing" events.

There's enough logic hardwired in the visual cortex to perceive that something
is moving, as well as that it is an apple, without having to move the eyes. So
I consider "mi viska lo nu lo plise cu farlu" to be valid.

"catlu" means to point the eyes at something, to direct one's attention at
something which one sees. "ko viska" would be said to someone whose eyes are
closed or who was blind and can now see. "ko catlu" would be said to someone
whose gaze is pointed somewhere else.

Pierre
--
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji

Ian Johnson

unread,
Sep 22, 2012, 9:37:43 PM9/22/12
to loj...@googlegroups.com
That point about the visual cortex is not only unimportant but outright false; vision does not take place exclusively in the visual cortex but is rather dispersed across the entire brain. That is, very nearly every neuron is involved to some extent in vision, and not even with interpretation, but just with generation of the signal itself. It is one of the most complicated things the brain has to manage. So no, even something as simple as motion is probably never detected by the visual cortex exclusively.

But even if it were, where do you draw the line? Can you see an event of love? Of anger? Of thought? All of these, unlike an apple falling, require an inference in addition to signal processing. (Actually, so does the apple falling, based on what I said in the previous paragraph, but we don't notice the inference there.) It seems simpler to say that you can't actually see an event at all, but only the objects involved in the event, since then you don't have to decide what can and can't be seen in the way of events.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

la gleki

unread,
Apr 8, 2013, 2:51:09 AM4/8/13
to loj...@googlegroups.com


On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:23:08 PM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:


On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:04:40 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
Am 22.09.2012 19:02, schrieb Ian Johnson:
> {mi viska lo plise noi farlu}. With some more twiddling you can force
> simultaneity if you care about it.

Or just "mi viska lo nu lo plise cu farlu".

Hey, yes and no. That's the point. If lo se viska can be an abstraction then my new gismu work. If not then I'll have to revert back to less backward-compatible 3-argument predicates. Both my suggestions can be found on http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section:+sensory+gismu


Is zgana2 an abstraction place or not?


Anyway, here is the table of what we have.

te jvinu se jvinu jvinu

viska se viska
te skari skari skari

tirna se tirna
se sance sance
krixa se krixa

sumne se sumne
te panci se panci panci

se vrusi vrusi

te palpi se palpi palpi
rufsu

te smaka se smaka smaka
se kukte kukte


{smaka} (taste) and {palpi} (palpable surface) are experimental words. We can clearly see that it is possible to regularise the structure of all this stuff.
The question is what solution to choose? 3-place solution seems to be the best one but it requires the third column to be an abstraction. Like
{mi te jvinu lo tcadu lo ka jibni lo cmana}. Besides, 3rd column of visual channel is not filled. Is {jvinu} restricted to visual channel? If so then no questions here.
For audio channel {te sance} might be a good solution.

I think this whole issue is something that can be fixed without breaking much backward compatibility.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages