Re: TECH: more about *mo'u

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

 From: jimc@EDU.UCLA.MATH

>
> Colin Fine writes that in the construction {mi bebau la lojban casnu}

That's "pebau"

> it is inconceivable to interpret "bebau la lojban" simultaneously
> as specifying the language of discussion, and as being an integral
> part of the syntactically determined sumti {mi bebau la lojban}.  It
> has to be attached to one phrase or the other, not both at once.
> If the sumti means anything, it means that "I" am somehow "in" the
> Lojban language.

I don't think that is what I wrote, but I accept it as a welcome summary.

>
> He and Mark Shoulson say that termsets are the right way to go, and
> I agree.  For example:
>
>         nu'i mi bau la lojban nu'u .e do bau la gliban (nu'u) cu sanga
>         [    I  (in Lojban)    ] and [ you (in English) ]        sing
>
> Someone (Mark I think) put out the hardest challenge: to use casnu as the
> selbri, since it demands a plural set for its x1, the members of which
> discuss something among themselves, like this:
>
>         mi ce      do  casnu               (bau la lojban)
>         I and(set) you discuss (something) (in Lojban language)
>
> The following is tempting:
>
>         nu'i mi bau la lojban nu'u ce do bau la gliban (nu'u) cu casnu
>              I in Lojban      and(set) you in English            discuss
>
> What might it expand into?
>
>         mi casnu bau la lojban .icebo do casnu bau la gliban
>         I discuss in Lojban and (set) you discuss in English
>

But we have been over this before. In general, non-logical connectives
cannot be expanded.
        mi ce do casnu
does not mean the same (probably) as
        mi casnu .ice do casnu

(Incidentally, .icebo is certainly unnecessary, and I think ungrammatical.
You need the "bo" after a tag, to prevent it swallowing the following
sumti or selbri, but ".ice" cannot be confused with "ce".)
> So we have a set composed of discourse level assertions of events of
> discussion among single persons.  This isn't very useful.

Indeed.

Unless
> someone can come up with a more creative use of grammar, I have to
> conclude that you cannot express the required meaning unambiguously in
> Lojban, that I and you discuss (something) AND that my part of the
> discussion was in Lojban while yours was in English.

I don't agree. I think that non-logically connected termsets will do the
job - though they are not grammatical at present.

>
> I don't shed any tears.  English speakers sling sumti around and expect
> their listeners to get them organized right, even inferring unspoken
> default selbri.  A logical language ought to have definite rules by
> which the spoken words and phrases are organized and interpreted.  In
> consequence, complicated combined meanings which can be elided in
> English will have to be written out prolixly in full if the rules are
> to be followed.  So if you want to be illogical, speak English.

I agree with this, and this is what was behind my spirited attack on
*mo'umau.  I would prefer that Lojban did not have certain elisions
(specifically PA SELBRI for PA lo SELBRI, and tu'a - though I confess I
use both) - but I can make a case for them: PA SELBRI can be mechanically
transformed to the pukka form with no real change in structure, and
"tu'a" at least specifically signals "I am being grubby and eliding some
structure". *mo'umau  - and "mo'ubau" - say something different from what
they are supposed to mean.
        Colin
>                 -- jimc
>