Miscellanea

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

A few miscellaneous points here:

>Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 1991 09:48:27 -0700
>From: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
>Subject:      Re: response #1 to Jim Carter

>Are you sure?  I had a dialog with John Cowan where the rule came out
>like this:  when a modal operator BAI is derived from a gismu BRODA,
>the meaning is (at least similar to) that the tagged sumti or _first_
>connected sentence is considered to be in x1 of BRODA (after
>conversion), and the main phrase or _second_ connected sentence is in
>x2.

You know, I was waiting for jimc to come up with dikni cmavo. I formulated the
above rule in May, but abandoned it because it doesn't work with most BAI.
For example, {bau}. {mi sanga bau la lojban} is not: {la lojban cu bangu lenu
mi sanga}, because that's not the interpretation of the x2 of {bangu}. It's
more like {la lojban cu bangu srana lenu mi sanga}, and if you want more
specificity, {la lojban cu bangu je velsku lenu mi sanga}. And {bau} is only
the mildest of such interpretables. No, let's keep BAI nice and vague for now.

>Date:         Mon, 30 Sep 1991 22:59:38 -0400
>From: Logical Language Group <lojbab%GREBYN.COM@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
>Subject:      response to jimc on my response#2 (lujvo-making)

Are we *still* talking on this subject? The both of you should try making more
lujvo in the dikyjvo style, and see where it gets you. I've found it to be
very often helpful, but seldom decisive. It at least allows a start. But things
like whether you elide a place or not - that's a dictionary issue. Still, I
can't tell you how comforting a dikni -{ri'a} compound can be. Though there is
a catch:

zmari'a: x1 causes that x2 is more than x3 by std x4 by amt x5. Pushdown the
places of zmadu. Cf. English: (x1) increases (x2).
basri'a: x1 causes that x2 replaces x3. Again pushdown.

basri'a is a translation of (animate agent) replaces (something1) by (some-
thing2). But something1 corresponds to x3 above, and something2 to x2. The
places come out jumbled. This is because (and this is more obvious in Esp),
when we put a transitive verb into a factitive (eat - feed; replace - replace
by) we often make the direct object of the original verb the direct object of
the new verb (the transformation away from the English dative, as in to feed
X Y, can conceal this). But there are no transitives in lojban; and a uniform
interpretation of such compounds is not logical perversion, it is internal
consistency. Why should we have one rule for zmadu and another for basti? If
things get too hairy, use sel- -ri'a: selbasri'a: x1 causes that x2 be replaced
by x3.

-ri'a is becoming a monomania of mine, but then, the ambiguity between the
two such interpretations of the corresponding -ig in Esp (does mangxigi mean
to make someone eat or be eaten?) make me wish for Lojban to do better.

That said, one shouldn't police tanru too much, though a more dikni tanru
(i.e. think of {je} between the component words, if possible) is polite.
Man with his hands in his pockets: daski nenri se xance - suggests primarily
(someone with hands) inside a pocket. seke daski nenri xance, someone with
(pocket inside hands), is nicer.

But when the crunch comes to the bite (or whatever), you can't be dikni all
the time.

Message-Id: <9110091611.AA01189@BU.EDU>
Date: 9 Oct 91 12:02:00 EDT
From: "61510::GILSON" <gilson%61510.decnet@ccf2.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: Settling disagreements on Lojban meanings

"Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson%CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU> writes:

> ... Nick, Lojbab, and I have recently (off-line) had a similar
>discussion wrt the Lojban attitudinal "kau", which indicates knowledge.  I
>felt that using it within a subordinate clause it still refers to the
>speaker, not the actor in the clause, or at least that it was very unclear.
>Bob and Nick felt that it referred to the actor in the clause (at least in
>the case we were dealing with, where the sentence was something like "he
>knew that something (known!) ...")

Actually, when {kau} was proposed, I said to Bob it should not be UI for this
reason. I think my interpretation is more useful: it makes a full analogy
between

mi djuno ledu'u do klama dakau
do djuno ledu'u do klama dakau
du'u klama dakau

I know the sentence: you're going to X, for some known X
You know the sentence: you're going to X, for some known X
Sentence: you're going to X, for some known X

where the sentence might be said to be seen in some absolute form, a phrase
in a PROLOG program. All three refer to an instantiation of X in GOES(you,X).
Let the instantiation of X be y. Then
GOES(you,y) is in my databank
GOES(you,y) is in your databank
GOES(you,y).

The UI-ist interpretation Mark uses has

GOES(you,y) is in my databank
GOES(you,X) is in your databank; GOES(you,y) is in my databank
GOES(you,X), where GOES(you,y) is in my databank

which I don't find as useful.

Bruce asks who decides, and I'm not sure. As for parser probs, apart from
frequent misorderings of NAhE and SE (*{se to'e catra} instead of {to'e se
catra}), analogies drawn where the parser hasn't allowed them yet (*{ka'enai},
by analogy with {punai}, {na'onai}, {fa'anai}), and more than one token of
lookahead, I parse alright. There is nothing simpler than simple sentences
in Lojban; it's the heavier transformations that make for error.
Of course, analogy is a mighty strong force, and I think after the five year
stability period, a form like {ka'enai} will have ended up in the vocab of
many Lojbanists. And when the language really takes off (twenty years, if ever),
I doubt any BNF will quite tie it down.

Message-Id: <m0kUfA9-00010rC@snark.thyrsus.com>
From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@uunet.UU.NET (John Cowan)
Subject: Re: Canadean and Schklorpya
To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu (conlang)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:45:25 EDT

Quoth John, on another forum:
>la ranld. heil. evnz. cusku di'e
>(Ronald Hale-Evans writes:)

>> 1. ownership (my car)
>       Lojban "po", although "po" does not entail ownership,
>       more like (alienable) possession or even just specificity
>       (the whole concept of "ownership" is culturally bound)
>> 2. intrinsic (my arm)
>       Lojban "po'e" (inalienable possession)
>> 3. creation/origin (my story)
>       Lojban uses place structures ("a story created-by me")

Also {ra'i}, {fi'e}, {teka'a}, {vebe'i}...

>> 4. dwelling (my city)
>       Lojban "po"

I do not like this. {pe}, at least. Possibly {pa'u}

>> 5. membership (my club)
>       Lojban "po"

Ditto.

>> 6. familial (my uncle)
>       Lojban uses place structures (X is-an-uncle-of me)
>> 7. role (my friend)
>       Lojban "po"

Usually place structures do the trick anyway, don't they? I'd still prefer {pe}.

>> 8. class (my species)
>       Lojban uses place structures


Date:         Wed, 9 Oct 1991 14:31:14 EDT
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson%CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject:      Aorist

>           la sofis. djuno le nu za'a la .artr. klaku
>           Sophy knows the event-of [I observe it!] Arthur weeps
>
>So by the usage suggested by Bob and Nick, this observation would likely
>apply to *Sophy*, not to the speaker.

Yeah, and I can tell you why: I'm not really distinguishing bewteen du'u
(sentence), and la'elu (quote). So for {djuno ledu'u za'a la .artr. klaku},
with all known things being sentences, at least in my idiolect, yes, I'd
feel more comfortable with that interpretation. Bit wary of {nu}, but. Does
{nu} include {du'u}? I certainly don't think it includes {ni}. Offline,
Jamie Bechtel had a translation where a path was said to be longer than
{lenu mi klama ca pano djedi}. longer than the event: I walk for ten days?
Surely longer than the amount: I walk for ten days, {leni klama}.

>you should realize that
>"sei" has a terminator "se'u", which may not be elidable.

Actually, I'm told {sei} was invented specifically for easy elision of {se'u}
- that's why SEI clauses are only SOV. I can see little distinction between
TO clauses (parenthetical) and SEI ("metalinguistic").

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick S. Nicholas,                       "Rode like foam on the river of pity
Depts. of CompSci & ElecEng,             Turned its tide to strength
University of Melbourne, Australia.      Healed the hole that ripped in living"
nsn@{munagin.ee|mullauna.cs}.mu.oz.au     -     S. Vega, Book Of Dreams
_______________________________________________________________________________