Re: TECH: misc transitive place structure issues

[Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>]

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

I salute the attempt to tidy the gi'uste up (one last time %^) ) of
"transitives", though I do think a clarification is in order. Transitives
aren't a problem for Lojban the same way they are for Esperanto --- where
a verb stem can be either transitive or intransitive, and the choice has
been left to historical accident (one design point in which Esperanto actually
loses out to Volap"uk, which made all verb stems intransitive!) The reason
it isn't a problem is that there are no transitives in Lojban, since there
are no direct objects in Lojban! What we're really talking about (and this
confused me in Lojbab's post on jarco, both of whose English paraphrases have
direct objects, until I got it) --- is agentives vs. non-agentives. Lojban,
after all, very much has thematic roles. And the incentive to reduce to
nonagentives is that, once the agent role is in a gismu, you can't really
kill it off short of zi'o, whereas you can easily add it on with -gasnu.

#jicla stir x1 (agent/force) stirs/mixes/[roils/agitates] fluid
#(gas/liquid) x2 with tool/utensil x3 as 8 [convection (= nenflejicla)];
#(cf. fanza, tunta, mixre)

#perhaps change to

#x1 convects/roils/is agitated [by tool/utensil x2?] [by force/activity
#(abstract) x2 (which might include both agent and tool)?]

Either of these latter two will do, I guess. Stirring can certainly be
nonagentive, and once you kill off the agent, the distinction between force
and tool becomes overfine.

#fatri fai distribute x1 distributes/allots/allocates/shares x2 among x3
#resulting in shares/portions x4; (x3/x4 fa'u) 8c 22 [also spread, share
#out, apportion]; (cf. cmavo list fa'u, fendi, preja)
#   x1 becomes distributed among ...

Change it.

#katna ka'a cut x1 (agent) cuts/splits/divides x2 (object) using
#tool/blade x3 into pieces x4 5c 25 (cf. kakpa, sraku for cutting into
#without division; plixa, dakfu, jinci, porpi, spofu, tunta, xrani)
#   x1 divides into pieces ...

Don't change it. It'd become too close to {spisa}, and without agent, I'm
not sure it'd be meaningful to speak of a tool, either.

#kavbu kav capture 'catch' x1 captures/catches/apprehends/seizes/nabs x2
#with trap/restraint x3 8e 33 [catch something thrown (= rerkavbu)]; (cf.
#jersi, kalte, pinfu, sisku, rinju)
#   x1 trap/restraint captures x2

Don't change it. The best I can appeal for here is an appeal to collocation,
I suppose: "capture" implies agent. "I'm trapped" as in "I'm stuck in a hole
I fell into, that wasn't intended for that purpose", is not something I'd
translate by {kavbu} --- it's closer to {rinju}.

#lasna la'a fasten 'lash' x1 (agent) fastens/connects/attaches x2 to x3
#with fastener x4 3f 17 (cf. jorne, fenso, jgena)
#   x1 becomes fastened to x2 by fastener x3
#   (may be similar to jornybinxo)

If too similar, then leave it as is.

#lumci lum lu'i wash x1 (agent) washes/cleanses x2 of soil/contaminant x3
#in/with cleaning material(s) x4 *5g 16 (cf. djacu, jinru, litki, zbabu,
#jinsa)
#    x1 is washed/cleansed of x2

In which case... no, it doesn't become identical with {curve}, because there's
still a ve lumci (which in my day was a te lumci; you've been revising the
place structures overtime!) Hm. Yeah, change it. Nonagentive washing does
happen. (You'll have to document all this in the gi'uste, of course)

#mipri mip secret x1 keeps x2 secret/hidden from x3 by method x4; x2 is a
#secret 3l 53 [intransitive hidden/secret, without an agent (= selcri or
#nalterju'o)]; (cf. stace, mifra, sivni, djuno, cirko)
#    x1 is secret/hidden from x2

Yeah. This one intuits with English, anyway.

#polje plo fold x1 (agent/force) folds/creases x2 at locus/loci/forming
#crease(s)/bend(s) x3 a 0 [use cardinal-value sumti in x3, or rapli, to
#indicate multiple folds]; (cf. korcu, cinje)
#    x1 becomes folded/creased at x2

I suppose.

#rinci drain x1 (agent) drains/strains liquid x2 from source x3 through
#drain/strainer x4 a 0 (cf. pambe, tisna, setca, flecu, muvdu)
#    x1 drains from x2 through x3

Yup.

#rinju ri'u restrain x1 (object/agent) restrains/constrains x2
#(object/event) under conditions x3 3m 19 (cf. zifre, ralte, pinfu)
#    object/agent confusion in x1 is a red flag to me.  Intransitive x1 is
#    a 'restraint', transitive is a 'restrainer/agent'

Make it nonagentive; just remember that it'll have a funny place order in the
agentive form (this, and a few others): agent x1 makes restraint x2 restrain
x3, rather than the expected agent x1 restrains x2 with x3

#setca se'a insert x1 (agent) inserts/interposes x2 into x3 6f 37 (cf.
#rinci, tisna)
#    intransitive may be covered by nenrybinxo

Yeah, don't change; you'd be taking too much of the definition away.

#sfasa sfa punish 'spank, castigate' x1 (agent) punishes x2 for
#(event/state/action) x3 with punishment x4 (event/state) a 2 (cf. cnemu,
#pleji, venfu, zekri)
#    Punishment x1 punishes x2 for x3

Even if the punisher is the State or God, I still think punishment
intrinsically involves a punisher. Leave it as is.

#sisti sti cease x1 [agent] ceases/stops/halts activity/process/state x2
#[not necessarily completing it] 1g 117 (cf. fanmo, mulno, cfari, denpa)
#    x2 ceases (not necessarily completing)

We never did find out why this was not parallel with {cfari}. I don't even
recall a rationale being presented. What was the story here?

#tcica tic deceive 'cheat, trick' x1 (agent/event) deceives/dupes/fools
#x2 about subject x3 by method/action x4 (event/activity) a 36 (cf.
#stace)
#    agent/event confusion looks like transitive/intransitive confusion

Deception is an agentive concept. Misleading isn't, and is what the event x1
would cover, although it sounds very close to an x4. Don't change it unless
you change the keyword to eliminate agentiveness and harmful intent ---
and even then, shouldn't misleading be handled by another selbri anyway?

#tisna tis fill 'stuff' x1 fills/stuffs x2 with material x3; x1
#inserts/pours x3 into x2 6f 35 (cf. culno, kunti, rinci, setca, culno)
#    x1 fills with material x2

Nope. That's {culno}

#tunta tun poke 'stab' x1 (agent) stimulates/pokes/jabs/stabs/prods x2
#(experiencer) with x3 [stimulus/pointed object] a 1 [stimulus need not
#be physical object]; (cf. balre, dakfu, darxi, fanza, jicla, katna,
#tikpa)
#     stimulus/object x1 stimulates x2
#     This has the added problem of potential sumti-raising and/or extensive
#     broadness of concept.  The stimulus (which need not cause a response)
#     is an event.  This may be confused with a related concept of stimulus
#     specifically by poking, etc.  But if these are to be separated, the
#     one eliminated needs a good lujvo.

I'd say this is more trouble than it's worth; keep it as is.

#vimcu vic vi'u remove x1 removes/subtracts/deducts x2 from x3
#with/leaving result/remnant/remainder x4 *7e 43 [alienation is
#inherent]; (cf. lebna)
#     x1 is removed from x2
#     (this may simply be canci)

Hm. I don't like it. Why this, and not lebna? Leave it.

#tunlo tul tu'o swallow x1 (agent/throat) swallows/engulfs x2 5c 2 (cf.
#citka, pinxe)
#     Does your throat or you do the swallowing?  This may be agent/object
#     confusion, or it may be a mass concept masquerading as metonymy

Eek. Don't know what to make of this one (as the logician said to the
pragmaticist); I guess keep it as is; we don't need to disentangle more than
we are capable of...

"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*