Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

> On zi'o lujvo
> I disagree a) because no convention has been adopted (at least I wasn't
> consulted to the level of "convention" that I know of)

You and I discussed this by phone.

> and b. there
> is an analysis that supports my place order, to wit:
> "selzilklama" reflects the tanru expansion "sezei zi'o zei klama".
> Since this does not look like any standard tanru grammar, you have to assume
> something is left out.  Thus zi'o (which has sumti grammar) HAS to be treated
> as if it had some other grammar.  What grammar is somewhat arbitrary.

This is not so clear either.  "zi'o" has the same grammar as "mi" and "do" and
"fo'a" and "fo'e", which all have rafsi, and which are normally analyzed
as making the pro-sumti fill one place of the lujvo -- which place is not
normally specified.

Thus "mibykulnu" surely means "kulnu be mi", my culture, not "kulnu be fa mi",
which would lead to the place structure "I am a culture of nation x1", a rather
useless lujvo.  Even so, there are possible cases where more than one
interpretation might make sense.  Thus "dondunda" could be either "x1 gives x2
to you" or "you give x1 to x2".  So the problem is not unique to "zi'o".

> If it
> is treated as a UI (a common fallback) it works.  If it is treated as
> a tanru element (I guess as "me zi'o") then the grouping is (se *zi'o) klama
> and you resolve the first two components as a place deletion with whatever
> conventional interpretation you can agree on.  In this analysis, it seems
> that there should be no reaarangement of terms since there is no suggestion
> of rearrangement.

"se me zi'o" is grammatical, but sounds like complete nonsense to me:
"x1 is the manner in which x2 pertains to the-omitted-thing".  There's no
way you can get the "se" to attach to the "klama" part.

> Since it is presumed that the place structure orders are desired to be in
> a particular order as a norm, analyses that lead to nonstandard and not
> inherently obvious orders are suspect.

Exactly why I rejected the idea of formulating "zi'o" as a kind of conversion,
to be attached to the selbri, which would "swap" the x1 place into oblivion.
By that convention, "*zi'o klama" would destroy the x1 place, and "*zi'o se
klama" would destroy the x2 place.  However, "*zi'o te klama" would be
problematic.  The x3 place would be destroyed correctly enough, but the
remaining places would be left in the confusing order "x2 x1 x4 x5" due to
the preliminary swap of x3 with x1.

As a result, it seemed safer to leave "zi'o" as a pro-sumti but to give it
a rafsi anyway, analogously to "mi", "do", etc.  The use of a number rafsi as a
quasi subscript following "zi'o", to specify the place where the "zi'o" was
to fit (i.e. the place to be eliminated) was a usable if klunky extension,
capable of being generalized to all the pro-sumti rafsi.

Consider the notion that "don-" always means that "do" is in the x1 place,
and we must say "terdon-" to put "do" in the x3 place.  Then the natural
"mibykulnu" above must be "selmibykulnu", and we have no natural way to
construct a lujvo with place structure "x1 is the gift you give to x2".
On my principles that is "seldondunda", or more precisely "seldonpavdunda",
where the "-pav-" forces the "do" into the x1 place; on your principles,
"seldondunda" means "x1 gives you to x2", surely a less useful result
(which on my principles can be expressed by "donreldunda").

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.