Re: TECH: *mo'u

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

> Date:          Thu, 11 Mar 1993 04:12:51 -0500
> From:  Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>

My feeling on the thread of *mo'u is that it's very important to (a)
define the grammatical construct so the various sumti get into
specific places of specific selbri without ambiguity -- that is,
I don't want to have to glork where they go (Cowan's term) -- and (b)
be as conservative as possible in re-using existing grammar.  I will
try to render the examples below in this spirit.  (Pardon if I'm a little
rusty.)

>  mi ?naubau la lojban cu ciska                (ti mupli pe la lojbab)
    mi poi/noi tavla fo la lojban cu ciska ...  (most imitative)
    I, palavering in Lojban, write something...
    mi ciska bau la lojban                      (most in Lojban spirit)
    I write (something) [modal place: language written = Lojban]

> The negative side is that argument of Colin's: is the non-logical glomeration
> of "me" and "Lojban" a suitable value for the x1 of cusku.  I think in some
> sense that it can be - that sense which was the original meaning of *mo'u
> - a modal restriction on "me" that is necessary to make the main bridi true
> (if you are looking at it in a particular way), and hence not an incidental
> statement like "ne" would entail.

But, but, but...  This is what we have subordinate clauses for.  Maybe
people are groping for a shortened version of a subordinate clause,
so you could represent {poi tavla fo} as an imitation BAI.  Better to
shorten the primary subordinate clause verbiage, a la gua!spi :-)

> Try the concept of "cat-more-than-dog lover" ... in a tanru?

        lo mlatu zmadu gerku nelci

Justification: there are no semantic rules for decoding tanru; you just
pile in the words and the listener is supposed to glork the meaning from
context.  Therefore there is no reason to add (or use) complicated grammar
or cmavo support to make precise the inherently imprecise tanru meaning.

Now try this non-tanru translation -- you're welcome to dikyjvo-ize it :-)

        lo nelci fi'o te zmadu lo'e gerku lo'e mlatu
        A lover, such that the love of dogs is exceeded by that of cats

I rely on John Cowan's concept of properties as propositional
functions, with {lo ka nelci} bound to zmadu x3, and some rule that
zmadu x1 and x2 (dogs and cats) bind to nelci x2, not x1, because x1 is
occupied, being the unseen export argument of {lo nelci...}.  I doubt
you're going to be able to build a diktanru which represents this
phrase precisely.  I'd have to dust off my parser to be sure, but I think
the gua!spi gismu definitions and dikyjvo procedures get all the arguments
bound right.

> This makes for a long lujvo: mlaty(xu'u)maugerkynelci is the unreduced form

As I say, I doubt you can force such a lujvo to mean what you want per
Lojban dijyjvo rules; without the holy grail of precise representation,
such a long lujvo is pointless; and whatever lujvo you might pick, you
would have to define it as a junior gismu, with all the administrative
nightmare (or lack of comprehension) entailed.  Better to bite the
bullet and say all the verbose words.

                -- jimc

P.S. to Cowan: the requirement in {lo nelci fi'o...} that nelci x1
remain occupied is a very good reason to regard pronoun binding not as
copying words but as copying ... well, not referents, but some
intermediate structure: the propositional function.  Your criticism of
my policy of copying words is well taken.