dikyjvo -response to jimc

[cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab (Logical Language Group)]

Nick:
>What Jimc did which is *substantially* important is the {belenu}
>analysis, of {ri'a} and so forth which, at least for {ri'a}, has a very
>well def'd place struct.  When applied to other gismu, as I pointed out,
>you get replication and other such complications.  And because the
>transformational mechanism of {belenu} dikyjvo is unique to Lojban, this
>flavour can be said to be non-descriptive of NLs, but rooted probably in
>JCB's usage.  It had to be pointed out to me before I could run with it.
>And the prescription doesn't fit everything I want to say.  But
>precisely because its place structs are well def'd, this flavour of
>dikyjvo is the most important and productive, as well as the most alien.

jimc:
>That's a real interesting comment.  It is certainly true that the
>abstract dikyjvo make the most words, the most useful words, and the
>ones which are most prolix when written out in full.  Having been close
>to the topic for a long time, I hadn't realized, but Nick is quite
>correct that this form is not seen in any of the natural languages that
>I know.  Of course that isn't saying much.  Rather than saying
>descriptively that JCB used this form, I would say that JCB saw
>potentially frequent use (in texts to be written in the future) of such
>abstractions, particularly with cleft places, and he developed an
>informal procedure to create lujvo for them.  I then reverse- engineered
>that procedure.

First of all, since JCB's lujvo-making was SO atrociously malglico, I am
suspicious of any langauge design concept based on such analysis.  Since
jimc then refined his ideas based on his own usage, which was never
accepted as correct and/or understandable Loglan by anyone but him -
even WITH his explanations, his refinement is equally suspect.  I want
to wait until we have lujvo made by many speakers, including non-English
natives, before I presume to make rules that hint at prescription.
Until then, I'll accept a lack of "empowerment" feelings in favor of
people relying on their own intuition of what other people will
understand, their non-analytical generalizations from what other people
do, and most important, what they bring to Lojban from their own natural
language.

Second of all, I think the belenu analysis is simply flawed.  Both JCB
was flawed in buiding such a pattern and jimc was flawed in assuming it
based on JCB.  I think that belenu lujvo are 'properly' built as
"nunco'ebroda, with Zipfean considerations allowing the nu to be left
out for common concepts when the x1 of the modifier term co'e isn't
going to be plausible as a most useful form.

The Lojban example I will cite is the never questioned until this week
"le'avla" which is really either nunlebna valsi, or selyle'a valsi,
lujvo-ized with the cmavo omitted either by intent or error.  Most would
now choose the latter origin as a better word basis (selyle'avla?), but
I suspect that my thought process when coining it was "borrowing?  - nah
we aren't going to give it back - taking! nunlebna.  But I can shorten
this from nunle'akemvla to the more ambiguous nunle'avla to le'avla
which is a short enough word for a basic Lojban concept, and I can't see
any good use for taker-word."  I don't know if this WAS my thought
process, but it seems more plausible and more like the way I want people
to think about lujvo-making, than the rote formula of "belenu".

(Will le'avla change to the longer but more accurate se-based word - who
knows.  I may put both in the dictionary and find out.)

>Key point:  maybe something easy can be done so a speaker can indicate
>which interpretation he wants for cevrirni.  But before such a mechanism
>can be sought, the participants have to agree that dikyjvo are a Good
>Idea, i.e. that it's worth searching for the resolution mechanism.

Right.  And I don't agree.  Lojban tanru are ambiguous by intent, and
Lojban lujvo are an embodiment and rigidification of tanru, with some
simplifying rules thrown in recognizing natural linguistic processes.  I
want the language to be a creative endeavor, not a mechanical one,
during its formative years.  I have no doubt that in any case, people
will learn to make lujvo, and learn to make them quickly and
effectively, without rules.  After all every one of us has done so.  A
lujvo that isn't understood by the listener doesn't survive, or gets
critiqued in countless Wallops and counter Wallops %^)

>As to statistics, lujvo can only be counted after the dikyjvo rules are
>irrevocably in place, so it's hopeless to base the original rules on
>statistics.  We have to "bootstrap" it just as JCB did:  What will
>people most likely want to say?  How can we make it easy for them?  What
>place structures and combining rules will coherently generate large
>numbers of useful lujvo?

The first sentence of course assumes that we want dikyjvo rules.  If you
want to do it as JCB did then don't use dikyjvo, use malglico.  He made
words into lujvo or gismu theoretically on a word-frequency basis
(.ianai) - which is of course why billiards and olive made his gismu
list.  Really he started with good intentions and then got lazy and
idiosyncratic.

I favor figuring out what people are most likely to say - a Lojban Eaton
project is a sure-fire necessity for the next phase of the project,
perhaps also using more up-to-date word frequency studies from more
variety of languages.  The only way to make these words avaliable
"easily" to lo'e lojbo is by making them for him.  Most people are
waiting for a dictionary simply because they don't WANT to make up
words, not because of an empowering thing.  They want a prescription,
and I refuse to give them one.  (As much as possible, as time goes on, I
intend to work for more than one Lojban word for as many English words
as possible, so people HAVE to think about what they want to say in
Lojbanic, and not English-equivalent or rote process terms and make a
choice.  Because ONLY if we do so, will Lojban break free of English.)

Well, maybe the masses will learn some of this by rote rules, but the
poets that set the examples and teach the language had better be more
creative and thoughtful than that.  I admire Nick for his efforts, AND
his recognition of the limits of dikyjvo - EARLY.


[By the way - this is not to say that the flawed belenu 'guideline' is
'wrong' or non-useful - merely that I don;t want to see it taught as
anything even hinting at a prescription.

]
lojbab