On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 11:59:49 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Anonymous <anyone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>In article <6t1fd3ld1ruupljnaqmvqlget0ekuktdb1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Dana Nutter \
>>deinx nxtxr <li_sasxsekREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> I know i've mentioned this before, but try downloading
>>> Lojban's gismu list from their site. They are the best source
>>> of semantic primes that I've found so far. The schema is very
>>> well thought out.
>>
>>They don't have a word for "s****ts" -- reflecting the geekiness of
>>people who are attracted to lojban -- look at your local TV newscast or
>>newspaper to verify that "s****ts" is a prime concept -- what other gaps
>>exist in their semantic web due to their _extreme_ nerdiness?
>
>Actually, nerdy or not, we did indeed consider a gismu for "s****ts" in
>Lojban. The problem is that we could not figure out a meaning that
>was culturally neutral, and which was distinct from "play" (kelci) and
>"compete" (jivna). Some s****ts are in fact not competitions, and some
>play is not "s****ts", and it is arguable that s****ts are not always
>mere "play". But what are the distinctive qualities?
>
>"Is chess a s****t?" is a long-time controversial question. The
>International Olympic Committee considers the games of chess and
>bridge to be s****ts, as do some units of the EU, but Americans tend
>not to think so. And if chess is a s****t, what about other board
>games like Monopoly? And you can then go on and examine role playing
>games which are as often as not cooperative rather than competitive,
>but in live-action gaming might be quite physical.
>
>The boundary between "s****ts" and "games" and to some extent "toys"
>becomes so fuzzy, we decided to let concepts in that semantic field be
>expressed using compounds of those other words.
I think that makes a lot of sense. I certainly don't consider chess or
bridge to be s****ts. In my opinion, a major distingui****ng feature of
a s****t (as opposed to a game) is the coordinated physical activity it
entails. Sure, I guess a live action chess match where to masters
control men who have a bit of a physical scuffle in order to win the
desired square could border on a s****t, but two guys sitting at a
table in a park ****ing over a checkerboard are NOT engaging in a
s****t. Even billiards is more s****tlike than that!
I would say that a s****t is a subset of the game (which is a kind of
rulebound "makebelieve" activity where normal rules of everyday life
are suspended and a completely different set of rules come into
effect), the principle difference being one of coordinated physical
activity. "Coordination" separates a formalised "football" from merely
kicking a ball around. Both are physical play, but the latter is not a
s****t.
I agree that "s****ts" should probably not be a semantic primitive --
it's too complex a social structure to be a primitive.
Padraic
>lojbab
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
