Re: lojban predicates

[cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!usl!usl!protin]

Folks,
    I hate to have to say this so strongly, (and Bob please don't
be offended,) BUT I find to be totally without merit, bogus, the
comments offered in
> Message-Id: <9110092028.AA18364@Princeton.EDU>
> Date:         Wed, 9 Oct 1991 16:21:07 EDT
> From: bob%GNU.AI.MIT.EDU@pucc.Princeton.EDU

where Bob says:

> Here is a way to think about lojban predicates in contrast to English
> verbs.
>
> In the written language of arithmetic, we write expressions such as
> the following:
>
>    2 + 2
>
> In this example, the plus-sign is the equivalent of a lojban gismu.
>
> If I write
>
>     2 +
>
> you know there is something missing...you yearn for another number, to
> complete the expression.
>
> The same with a lojban expression:
>
>     mi klama
>     I  come/go
>
> is incomplete.  In lojban, you yearn for a destination, departure,
> path, and means.
[rest deleted for brevity]

While I can easily accept that we need a far different model to
think about lojban than the one we use for thinking about English,
I reject any suggestion that

     mi klama

is in any way incomplete.  The image that I construct in my mind
is small corresponding to the small amount of data provided, and
it has "hooks" where I might attach additional data like the
destination.  But I do not yearn for the elipsed members of the
relation any more than I would for any other piece of the whole
picture (like why do you go or why do you think that I care that
you go).  The use of "klama" implies that there is some destination
but the importance of that data is clearly unspecified and will
probably be given a default importance of "nearly nil".  Other
dialog/monolog is required to elevate that "slot" to any greater
promenense (I hope I spelled that right, I am on a new system
and I have not yet found all the good tools).  If that piece of
the whole picture becomes both important and unspecified, I will
inquire as I would for any other data I need to satisfy my view
of that picture.
    I see no reason to provide any members of any relation (predicate)
that are not relavent to the discourse.  That the provided members
can/do have the designated role in some instance of the relation is
all that the language can express.  We might, with sufficient
dialog and experience, be relatively certain that we know exactly
which instance is being described, but there can be no guarentees.
(This is not a property of just lojban but of human communication
in general.)
    (This diverges from the point, so I will pause here.)
(with the brief summary:)
Say everything that is important to the dialog and nothing else!

    thank you all,
     Art Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com>
The views expressed are strictly those of the author and are in no
way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.