skari: remove x4 and clarify x2

[solpahi]

Proposed definition without x4:

skari: x1 is/appears to be of color/hue x2 as perceived/seen by x3.

skari2 is one of those places I was never comfortable with. I've seen it used with ka, as in {ta skari lo ka xunre}. I'm not too happy with that, or will colors and measurements.

I wish we could actually talk about colors and not just things that have those colors. Then skari would serve as an interface between objects and colors.

If, for instance, there existed a brivla {broda} "x1 is the color red", then {ta skari lo broda} is perfect for "That thing has the color red." whilie we can still speak generally about colors {mi nelci lo broda} "I like the color red." ({.i na'i mi nelci lo xunre}), which has nothing to do with liking red things. I can like the color red, but hate that my wall is red. I can like red, but hate all red things on the planet.

But we do not have such color brivla, nor do we have words for abstract measurements, like "a meter", or "a second", or "a dollar". No dimensioned numbers either. We are always forced to introduce stand-in events even when we don't want to. I wish we had more options.

[aponigricon]

I don't know... wouldn't it be easier to just switch around x₃ and x₄? If the last is used more than the first, then that would be the most logical thing to do.

[xorxes]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:40 PM, selpahi [email protected] wrote:

Proposed definition without x4:

skari: x1 is/appears to be of color/hue x2 as perceived/seen by x3.

skari2 is one of those places I was never comfortable with. I've seen it
used with ka, as in {ta skari lo ka xunre}. I'm not too happy with that, or
will colors and measurements.

We could draw a parallel between that use of "skari" and "cinmo". "ta skari
lo ka xunre" is just a longwinded way of saying "ta xunre", like "ko'a
cinmo lo ka badri" is just a longwinded way of saying "ko'a badri". But
perhaps we can say "ta skari lo ka xamsi", or "ko'a cinmo lo ka tirxu", and
mean not "ta xamsi" or "ko'a tirxu", but rather "that has the color that it
would have if it were the sea", "ko'a feels as it would feel if it were a
tiger". Are there any other object-property predicates that would make
sense if used this way?

I think I have always used "skari" as "x1 is of the color of x2", so "ta
skari lo xamsi", or "ta xasyska".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[solpahi]

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

We could draw a parallel between that use of "skari" and "cinmo". "ta skari
lo ka xunre" is just a longwinded way of saying "ta xunre", like "ko'a
cinmo lo ka badri" is just a longwinded way of saying "ko'a badri". But
perhaps we can say "ta skari lo ka xamsi", or "ko'a cinmo lo ka tirxu", and
mean not "ta xamsi" or "ko'a tirxu", but rather "that has the color that it
would have if it were the sea", "ko'a feels as it would feel if it were a
tiger". Are there any other object-property predicates that would make
sense if used this way?

I've definitely used {cinmo} like that. Off-hand I can't think of any
similar predicates, though.

I think I have always used "skari" as "x1 is of the color of x2", so "ta
skari lo xamsi", or "ta xasyska".

For a second there I thought you had written "x1 is the color of x2"!
(That I would have sort of liked, although it's backwards from current
{skari})

{ta skari lo xamsi} could also be {ta dunli lo xamsi lo ka skari ma kau}
no matter how xamsi2 is defined.

With your definition, though, I still can't say "I like the color red"
if I have to use another object that has that color. What if no red
objects exist? Sure, I can imagine one, but why do I even have to
introduce an object into the situation in the first place?

If {skari} were "x1 has color x2...", then we might at least use lujvo
like {xunska} ("x1 is the color red") to not only say {ti skari lo
xunska}, but also {mi nelci lo xunska} "I like red". It's a bit
backwards, since I consider colors more basic than objects that have
those colors (so the colors should be gismu), but it seems to be too
late to do anything about it. It's not just about colors, but about all
the abstract qualities and units whose existence Lojban completely
denies. (we still have the power to add new predicates, but it won't
magically introduce dimensioned numbers)

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

[xorxes]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:00 PM, selpahi [email protected] wrote:

{ta skari lo xamsi} could also be {ta dunli lo xamsi lo ka skari ma kau}
no matter how xamsi2 is defined.

Yes, but that would mean that new words for colors end up as "brodyskadu'i"
rathar than "brodyska".

With your definition, though, I still can't say "I like the color red"
if I have to use another object that has that color. What if no red
objects exist? Sure, I can imagine one, but why do I even have to
introduce an object into the situation in the first place?

There's always the most abstract "lo xunre", Mr Red (which is also how I
think of "lo mitre", "lo rupnu", ...)

If {skari} were "x1 has color x2...", then we might at least use lujvo

like {xunska} ("x1 is the color red") to not only say {ti skari lo
xunska}, but also {mi nelci lo xunska} "I like red".

Do you mean "xunselska", or changing skari to "x1 is the color of x2"?

It's a bit
backwards, since I consider colors more basic than objects that have
those colors (so the colors should be gismu), but it seems to be too
late to do anything about it. It's not just about colors, but about all
the abstract qualities and units whose existence Lojban completely
denies. (we still have the power to add new predicates, but it won't
magically introduce dimensioned numbers)

The way Lojban does measures doesn't bother me that much, except for the
mysterious "scale" places.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[lagleki]

2014-06-05 3:23 GMT+04:00 xorxes [email protected]:

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:40 PM, selpahi [email protected] wrote:

Proposed definition without x4:

skari: x1 is/appears to be of color/hue x2 as perceived/seen by x3.

skari2 is one of those places I was never comfortable with. I've seen it
used with ka, as in {ta skari lo ka xunre}. I'm not too happy with that,
or
will colors and measurements.

We could draw a parallel between that use of "skari" and "cinmo". "ta skari
lo ka xunre" is just a longwinded way of saying "ta xunre", like "ko'a
cinmo lo ka badri" is just a longwinded way of saying "ko'a badri". But
perhaps we can say "ta skari lo ka xamsi", or "ko'a cinmo lo ka tirxu", and
mean not "ta xamsi" or "ko'a tirxu", but rather "that has the color that it
would have if it were the sea", "ko'a feels as it would feel if it were a
tiger". Are there any other object-property predicates that would make
sense if used this way?

Ofc. All sensory verbs refer to prototypes.

It smells fishy pe'anai.
The sound is loud (vs. just "It is loud")
etc.

Objects= combinations of properties. Thus one can view that as if objects
didnt exist.

I think I have always used "skari" as "x1 is of the color of x2", so "ta
skari lo xamsi", or "ta xasyska".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#27 (comment).