[lojban] Re: The x1 of fenki

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 18, 2005, 4:15:52 PM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/18/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> This is really bizarre to me, because to me only *people* are crazy.
>
> There are actions that only a crazy person would take, but it's the
> preson that's crazy, not the actions.

In English, "crazy" can be used both for people or for actions.
"He's crazy" and "that's crazy" are both perfectly idiomatic
as far as I can tell.

In Lojban, according to the gi'uste, there are certain gismu
places that are reserved for events and from which people or
objects are explicitly excluded. It is very hard to guess which
places are like that, and which will happily take both people
and events. For example the x1 of {xajmi} explicitly allows
both people and events. I have never quite understood the
rationale behind the distinction.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 18, 2005, 7:35:26 PM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/18/05, John E Clifford <cliff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> But even if
> we could come up with a rationale in this case,
> another case would come along equally mysterious.
> Languages get words in spite of someone's
> rational scheme, not because of it.

Natlangs, yes. But Lojban did mainly get its words because
of someone's (rational or irrational) scheme.

Theodore Reed

unread,
May 17, 2005, 11:52:23 PM5/17/05
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 11:18 -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > All of the major words used in the definition
> > of fenki (crazy,
> > insane, mad, frantic, frenzy) apply primarily
> > to *people*, at least
> > in the dictionaries I'm looking at.
> >
> > Why, then, is the x1 of fenki an event?
> >
> Either politeness or an entrenched notion of
> psychology: people aren't crazy, only their
> actions are. Were the first place a person we
> would need another place (probably the second)
> for the behavior that justified the label. For
> that matter, all the words do also apply to
> actions in English ("frenzy" is an action-type,
> not a person at all, but both persons and actions
> can be frenzied). But it does make it hard
> (perhaps intentionally?) to say a person is crazy
> ({tu'a}? or a compound with {gau}?).

I'm not sure {gau} is what you want there. Perhaps {zu'e}?
--
Theodore Reed <tr...@surreality.us>

signature.asc

John E Clifford

unread,
May 18, 2005, 7:11:40 PM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org
{tu'a} dammit.

--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:18:15AM -0700, John

> E Clifford wrote:
> >
> > --- Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > All of the major words used in the
> definition of fenki (crazy,
> > > insane, mad, frantic, frenzy) apply
> primarily to *people*, at
> > > least in the dictionaries I'm looking at.
> > >
> > > Why, then, is the x1 of fenki an event?
> >
> > Either politeness or an entrenched notion of
> psychology: people
> > aren't crazy, only their actions are.
>
> That would be fine if there was a place for the
> person committing
> the action, but there isn't. The definition
> quite clearly states
> that it is the x1 event itself that is crazy.

>
> This is really bizarre to me, because to me
> only *people* are crazy.
>
> There are actions that only a crazy person
> would take, but it's the
> preson that's crazy, not the actions.
>
> -Robin
>
> --
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ ***
> http://www.lojban.org/
> Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their
> Grate!"
> Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute -
> http://singinst.org/
>
>
>
>


Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 18, 2005, 2:34:20 PM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org

John E Clifford

unread,
May 18, 2005, 11:23:57 AM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org

Maybe; but calling a certifiable nut a
volitional entity sorta misses the point, as does
talk of ends and the like for crazy actions. He
certainly is the agent, he does do the deed,
though "brings about" packs in a lot of dubious
metaphysical freight that probably does not apply
(for much the same reason as talk of ends does not).


John E Clifford

unread,
May 18, 2005, 11:28:04 AM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/05, Theodore Reed <tr...@surreality.us>

> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 11:18 -0700, John E
> Clifford wrote:
> > or a compound with {gau}?).
> >
> > I'm not sure {gau} is what you want there.
> Perhaps {zu'e}?
>
> -zu'e brings in intentionality, so maybe -tra
> is better in some
> cases.

Yes; as usual, this seems the best choice:
{fektra} x1 is crazy (maybe a bunch of other
places about what he does or what the name of the
condition is or what the conditions are -- for
the scientist or medico, not the vernacular).


John E Clifford

unread,
May 18, 2005, 7:10:50 PM5/18/05
to loj...@yahoogroups.com
This makes perfect sense to me, but language use
is agin you. And, of course, noncrazy people can
and do do crazy things (i.e, I suppose, things
that we would normally take to be the actions of
crazy people). I suppose it is easier to get
crazy people out of crazy acts than conversely.
Note too that {ta'u ko'e fenki} certain cases
ko'e in a less than sane role.

--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:18:15AM -0700, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> >
> > --- Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > All of the major words used in the
> definition of fenki (crazy,
> > > insane, mad, frantic, frenzy) apply
> primarily to *people*, at
> > > least in the dictionaries I'm looking at.
> > >
> > > Why, then, is the x1 of fenki an event?
> >
> > Either politeness or an entrenched notion of
> psychology: people
> > aren't crazy, only their actions are.
>

Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 18, 2005, 8:12:57 AM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 5/18/05, Theodore Reed <tr...@surreality.us> wrote:

-zu'e brings in intentionality, so maybe -tra is better in some
cases.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


John E Clifford

unread,
May 18, 2005, 7:18:29 PM5/18/05
to lojba...@lojban.org

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/05, Robin Lee Powell

> <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > This is really bizarre to me, because to me
> only *people* are crazy.
> >
> > There are actions that only a crazy person
> would take, but it's the
> > preson that's crazy, not the actions.
>
> In English, "crazy" can be used both for people
> or for actions.
> "He's crazy" and "that's crazy" are both
> perfectly idiomatic
> as far as I can tell.
>
> In Lojban, according to the gi'uste, there are
> certain gismu
> places that are reserved for events and from
> which people or
> objects are explicitly excluded. It is very
> hard to guess which
> places are like that, and which will happily
> take both people
> and events. For example the x1 of {xajmi}
> explicitly allows
> both people and events. I have never quite
> understood the
> rationale behind the distinction.

It does not seem to make much sense, since people
are funny much in the same way they are crazy:
what they say or do, and events are crazy in much
the same way they are funny (note we even use
"funny" as a euphemism for "crazy"). But even if

John E Clifford

unread,
May 17, 2005, 2:18:15 PM5/17/05
to lojba...@lojban.org

--- Robin Lee Powell

<rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> All of the major words used in the definition
> of fenki (crazy,
> insane, mad, frantic, frenzy) apply primarily
> to *people*, at least
> in the dictionaries I'm looking at.
>
> Why, then, is the x1 of fenki an event?
>
Either politeness or an entrenched notion of
psychology: people aren't crazy, only their
actions are. Were the first place a person we
would need another place (probably the second)
for the behavior that justified the label. For
that matter, all the words do also apply to
actions in English ("frenzy" is an action-type,
not a person at all, but both persons and actions
can be frenzied). But it does make it hard
(perhaps intentionally?) to say a person is crazy
({tu'a}? or a compound with {gau}?).


Robin Lee Powell

unread,
May 17, 2005, 1:29:11 PM5/17/05
to lojba...@lojban.org
All of the major words used in the definition of fenki (crazy,
insane, mad, frantic, frenzy) apply primarily to *people*, at least
in the dictionaries I'm looking at.

Why, then, is the x1 of fenki an event?

-Robin

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages