Re: TECH.QUERY: zo bancu cu mo zo zmadu leka smuni

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

>
> The question between zmadu and bancu is NOT the x3 place, which they share,
> but the x4 place that they don't.  I am not sure that your version of the
> statement using zmadu is as clear as the same statement using bancu.  The
> x4 place that you did not supply may not be meaningful, even if there is
> a way to define its value (certainly mathematicians/geometers can tell how
> much more distant the tree is from you than the fence.  But the essential
> claim is that the tree is on the other side of the fence and not that it is
> more distant from you than the fence.  Hmm.  Indeed, the fence might be in a
> different direction from you than the tree, and closer to you, and the s
> statement involving zmadu would be true, but not the statement involving
> bancu.  Thus bancu ==> zmadu but not necessarily vice versa.


I think that we are running into a problem with generality of definition. It
seems to me that

	le tricu cu bancu le bitmu

is not very meaningful with the current definition of bancu, unless given a
context that implies distance. There is no reason whatever why this should not
mean "The tree is taller than the fence", and with somewhat lower probability
"prettier".

I think we are getting misled by the English keyword "beyond" into supposing
that we are talking of spatial position (the primary meaning of "beyond").

It seems to me that the distinction you are claiming between "zmadu" and
"bancu" is that the measurements are not only comparable with the specified
result, but also in some sense "in the same direction" (whatever that might
mean for non-spatial uses). But I do not like you using an spatial example
and then arguing from the special spatial properties of the example.

I accept that there is a semantic difference between the two gismu. I cannot
see why "bancu" shouldn't have an x4. And I would encourage people to use
a lujvo for a specifically spatial sense of 'beyond'.

		Colin