Define "define"

[Alex Rozenshteyn]

Above all, logic requires precise definitions.

{ra'u lo logji ku se sarcu lo satci me'oi .definition.}

(forgive me if I misued {me'oi}; I'm not yet well versed in importing words)

.i ma valsi lo me'oi .definition.

--

          Alex R

[Alex Rozenshteyn]

But {cmene} explicitly lacks any place for "meaning".
{valsi} might work, but it still seems weird.

I was thinking something along the lines of "standardized meaning"

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:36 PM, .alyn.post. <alyn...@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 06:31:11PM -0500, Alex Rozenshteyn wrote:
>    [1]Above all, logic requires precise definitions.

Isn't that cmene?

A definition is associating a symbol with some thing/concept, which
is what cmene does.

-Alan
--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi

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

--

          Alex R

[Alex Rozenshteyn]

so why not selvla?

I feel like selvla is settling.  I'll take it if nothing better comes up, but you can define things that aren't words.  You can define concepts (which are, I admit are typically expressed in words) and symbols, too.
 

I think to define is to specify the meaning, but I don't know how to
say "specify". We have "specific", but not "specify". We also have "ca'e",
but it doesn't have a rafsi. "ca'esmu" is glossed as "push-ing-meaning(s)??".

Seems a tad too figurative...  As I understand, {ca'e} the discursive and {-ca'e-} the rafsi aren't related.
 
--

          Alex R