Lojban duplications

[cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!bob]

   >        cliva           x1 leaves x2 via route x3 by means x4
                                    (no destination)
   >        klama           x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3
                                     via route x4 by means x5

   Seems to me that with "zo'e" and the fact that the last places can
   be eliminated (if I remember the rules right) you really don't
   _need_ these nearly synonymous gismu.

   What, for example, is the distinction between "x1 cliva x2 x3 x4"
   and "x1 klama zo'e x2 x3 x4"?

This is a cultural misunderstanding.  In lojban, the meanings of every
word _include_ the meanings of _every_ place structure.  Thus,

    x1 klama zo'e x2 x3 x4

specifically includes the notion of a destination, only it is not
being mentioned.

On the other hand,

    x1 cliva x2 x3 x4

completely lacks that notion.

The word "klama" is not "coming/going", although we often tend to
abbreviate it that way.  The word is the full predicate expression,
including the meaning of its places.

The `x1', `x2', etc are not merely to indicate what you can say
without using a preposition; they are parts of the meaning of the
word.  Perhaps a different notation for the definition will help
clarify this:

    `klama' means <comer-goer> comes/goes <destination> <departure-location>
                               <along-path> <using-means>

Here the elements in angle brackets are metasyntactic variables that
you fill in.

Yet another notation:

    `klama' means

    Comer-goer comes/goes to-destination from-location along-path
    using-means, where the speaker specifes comer-goer as..., destination
    as..., etc.

In a language that uses prepositional operators and other such
mechanisms, the meaning of an expression is changed by adding new
places to a verb.  Using the lojban meaning of predicate,
the predicate in the English sentence

    I go to the market from home.

is completely different from the predicate in

    I go to the market.

even though most of the words are the same.  In neither example is the
predicate the word `go'.

In the first example, the predicate is

    Comer-goer goes to-destination from-location

which is a relation among _three_ states/events/processes in the
universe.

In the second example,  the predicate is

    Comer-goer goes to-destination

which is a relation among only _two_ states/events/processes in the
universe.

In lojban, when different gismu are used for the two sentences, there
is no suggestion that the second sentence is `less complete' or `less
precise' for lacking a `from-location'.  In the examples, the second
sentence is 100% complete; it is talking about a circumstance in the
universe without a `from-location'.

On the other hand if you say in lojban,

    mi klama le zarci
    I  come/go (or went or will come or go)
    to the (specific) market/store (I have in mind) from somewhere
    unspecified along an unspecified route using an unspecifed means.

you are making an incompletely specified statement---you can do this,
but the expression shouts its incompleteness.

It may be that humans cannot learn to think in lojban; maybe humans
will always think of "x1 cliva x2 x3 x4" as an equivalent to "x1 klama
zo'e x2 x3 x4".  I don't know what to expect. This is another area of
experiment.

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    Rattlesnake Mountain Road        (413) 298-4725 or (617) 253-8568 or
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (617) 876-3296 (for messages)