Re: deleting places

[Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

Art Protin, responding to Robert J. Chassell says:

> 1)      The gismu klama is really inappropriate for this discussion
>         of places because all travel has a destination regardless
>         of whether it is known or by whom it is known.  (Ignorance
>         of the destination of an orbit by anyone is no wheres near
>         a proof of its non-existance.)

Infinite orbits that never reach any destination are possible, but besides
that, I think {cliva}, to leave, is not just {klama be zi'o}, ie {klama}
with the destination place removed. The concept of {cliva} seems to be
that of abandoning a place, I don't think it has much to do with travel.
It is true that the usual way of abandoning a place is to travel somewhere
else, but couldn't we say "Life left his body"? It didn't go anywhere, nor
did it travel, it just left.

> 2)      Even if it were possible to have travel "without a destination",
>         I reject that concept using rather "with no destination"
>         which is still klama with the destination place filled by
>         the "answer does not exist" value.
>
> SOME ONE PLEASE  POST WHAT THE WORD IS TO USE FOR "answer does not
> exist".

I think {no da} is what you want. This is yet another concept.
{klama be noda}, {klama be zi'o}, and {cliva} are similar but
different, I think.

> 3)      If everyplace must have a non-null value than most multiplace
>         gismu need corresponding gismu with fewer places.

I don't think that's needed in most cases, because the corresponding gismu
would not be that useful, but I do agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea
to make some gismu leaner.

> 4)      What about all the attachable places.  By the logic that every
>         place is fundamental to the understanding of the concept
>         that a gismu embodies, the attachment of another place once
>         means either that the gismu embodies two concepts or that
>         all uses of that gismu have that attached place.

As I see it, the attachment of a place gives you a new concept, based of
course on the gismu concept. Something like what happens in lujvo.

> 5)      Given that lojban is to be a human language, defined by usage
>         and described by our texts (as verses prescribed by them),
>         I believe that the rigid place view will have to be abandoned.

I believe that pragmatically this will happen, that places will drop off
from some definitions. I don't think it's likely that places will be added.

>         I believe that a property of teaching language by example
>         is that the place structure will have to be somewhat looser
>         and people will learn gismu initially as having minimal
>         place structure.

Well, in theory you don't understand the correct meaning of the gismu
if you don't know all the places. That's in theory, of course.

>         The less commonly used places will be
>         learned later as enhancements of the base concept.

This shouldn't be the case. That's why I dislike gismu with more than
three places, even though some seem necessary. But in practice, I agree.

>         While this may violate the paradigm of predicate calculus,
>         its either that or limit lojban to a second language, as
>         mathematics is.

Not really. Context often makes it clear whether you are using rigorous
logic, or pragmatism. Lojban allows you to not let pragmatism get in the
way when you don't want it. In normal circumstances, it works like any
other language, not like maths.

Jorge