Re: Lojban duplications

[cbmvax!uunet!USL.USL.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!usl!protin]

Folks,
    When John Cowan said on 11 Oct 91 (with quotes from Jimc):

>> Is it our current doctrine that, for each predicate, besides the
>> numbered places, the predicate relation includes every <BAI> case
>> whether or not specified by words?  In other words, every bridi
>> includes a (often unspecified, likely useless in practice, but
>> doctrinally important) tense, speaker, listener, language of
>> expression, cause (4 kinds), consequence (4 kinds), exemplar, etc. etc.
>> ad infinitum?  Note that fi'o <bridi> can make a <BAI> case out
>> of every selbri in the language, so "ad infinitum" is to be taken
>> literally.
>
> It is Even So, ya sidi.

I was pleased.  First, because this is how I viewed it.  BUT equally
important is the hole that this blows in the "klama" vs. "litru"
vs. "cliva" distinction-by-virtue-of-fewer-places argument.  "Litru"
will always have a destination place even if it is not numbered/reserved.

Jimc offers this bandaid:
> Here's a compromise: each predicate has a list of essential places,
> and every instance has all these places whether or not specified by
> words.  But only some of them are numbered; the rest are served by
> BAI/PU/KI'O. ....  Unlisted BAI's if present would be interpreted
> similar to a restrictive subordinate clause on the bridi, not as an
> actual part of the relation.

.... WHOA!.  as I compose this reply I find more merit here than
when I decided to reply ....
While I will accept that some of the add-on-places are really
restrictive clauses, I am not receptive to a limted, bounded, definitive
list other than the numbered places.  My understanding of lojban/Loglan
NEVER had this hangup about unfilled places.

    The planets had an origin and given sufficient time they will
have a destination and they will get from the former to the later
via some path.  In general, when discussing the motion of the planets,
it is unimportant to consider those end points.  Thus, we do not
mention them.  They exist.  We can talk about them.  I don't mention
them because they are mostly a distraction.  I do not deny their
existance.  And I do not expect you to wonder about them.  I do not
expect you to ponder or be otherwise consumed with any places that
I left unfilled.  If elipsing a place of a gismu is making some
claim about its existance, then we need a few place holders:
    1) one that denies the existance,
    2) one that claims the existance is irrelevant,
    3) one that makes no claim at all about the existance.

    Until Lojban Central issues a directive to the contrary, I
want you all to know that when I leave a place empty I make no
claim about that empty place except that I saw no reason to
include it.  You are not free to assume that there is even some
unnamed thing in that place.

When I say:
        mi klama
I am not even admitting to having a destination!  Obviously I
will wind up somewhere, but that is not to say that that final
destination was my intention when I began or even that I had an
intended destination or if I had some intended destination,
that I ever reached it.
In fact, "klama" will undoubtedly say both more and less than
I wanted but it will have to do as a best approximation.  I
can not count on useful communication when everything I want
to express requires the creation of a new unique word to express
this new unique idea.  I expect that we will all have to use
words as idealized approximations to what we want to represent.
Since obviously everything that moves had an origin and
ultimately has a destination (given suffcient time) then
we do not seem to need "litru".

    I really do not need to get rid of "litru".  It uses up
gismu space to provide a shortened representation when I
wish to disregard the end points, the second and third arguments
of "klama".  I can even accept "cliva".

                BUT
I only accept them as full synonyms:  "litru" is "klama" with
x2 & x3 permantently elipsed and x4 & x5 shifted into places 2 & 3.
Similarly for "cliva".

    The distinction that others claim to see, strikes me as the
kind of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that I want to leave behind as
I convert to lojban.

    Maybe there are better examples for this debate.  Maybe, this
triple is a red herring.  What are some of the other examples of
relations that are (supposedly) different because of the number
of places?
    (While I may yet recognize a situtation where the difference
is relevant, I doubt that I will ever see "litru", "cliva", and
"klama" as other than synonyms.)

And who is this "Haldane in exile" (Bob Slaughter) that spouts:
> Then obviously you haven't learned to *think* in lojban. :)
Smart enough to include an almost smiley (make it bigger next time
like :-) or :^) or ;-> so we are sure that is what you are doing)
but not smart enough to break lines into reasonable sized pieces.


> Perhaps the phrase "is not fully completed" instead of "incomplete"
>  might make more sense here.  You may not yearn for them, but you
> know there are unanswered items, because the "hooks" are far more
> explicit in lojban than English.

What hooks in English?

> The unladen "hooks" are _meant_ to be filled, or questioned.
No! No! No!  They are not meant to be filled in.  And when I do
not fill them in, I do not usually expect you to inquire.  I expect
that that information would be wasteful if included.  You will inquire
only if differ with me on that assessment

> Lojban is a dialog-based langauge, rather than a monolog-based
> language like Standard Written English.  I can see where a speaker
> of English "sees" "I come" as a fullty completed sentence with no
> unknown information, but all speakers will know the speaker of
> "mi klama" could've said something but *conscoiusly didn't*.
>  Hmmm, imagine what that means for Lojbanistani politicians.....
I try not to associate with speackers of any language that ASSUME
that any sentence is so complete that there is not some unarticulated
information.  "mi klama" can stand as is even though there is a
lot of unarticulated information.  I hope not to associate with
any fool that imagines providing an origin, a destination, a route,
and a means to "mi klama" will express all there is to know
about the event.

    thank you all,

        Art


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.