[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
TECH: deagentive place structures
Lojbab:
> I've looked over muvdu, and am inclined to make it intransitive, along
> with other gismu that I find that are unnecessarily transitive (see
> other posting on jarco).
Hear hear.
> However there was another distinction embedded in muvdu that was not in
> other words of motion. benji is transmission that need not necessarily
> alienate the thing transmitted from the originator (e.g. information)
> muvdu was intended to indicate a relocation that necessarily implied
> alienation.
>
> If we make muvdu the intransitive of motion, how do we show the alienation/
> inalienation distinction?
I would contrast:
muvdu - +alienation, -agentive
preja - -alienation, -agentive
muvgau - +alienation, +agentive
benji - -alienation, +agentive
> And a problem I was alrady unsettled about: how do we express motions
> of parts of an object, either transitive or intransitive; e.g. "He
> lifted his arm". "The arm of the apparatus moved through a 90 degree
> arc." as expressions of "the man moves" and "the apparatus moves". i.e.
> If the man lifts his arm or it raises on its own for some reason, we can
> say that "the man moves", but the man doesn't move from/to anywhere.
>
> Ideas?
"posture" + cenba
JARCO:
I suggest:
x1 is evidence for x2 to knower x3
e.g. "his actions (x1) showed me (x3) that he was brave (x2)
For "He showed me he was brave, by putting his head in the lion's mouth",
use jarco zei gasnu.
For "She showed him the picture", use viska zei gasnu
Nick quoting Lojbab:
> I salute the attempt to tidy the gi'uste up (one last time %~) ) of
> "transitives",
Me too! At last, a major improvement to the language takes place.
(I mean since I took an interest in the language.)
> #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.
I agree with Nick: the x3 should accommodate both options.
> #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.
Yes indeed.
> #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.
(1) I strongly advocate:
x1 (blade) cut x2 (object)
The notion of cutting is important, & without a blade there is no cutting.
However, if I cut my finger, there are no pieces, so the x4 would have
to be zihoed off, were it to remain as an argument of the gismu. Note
that I can be cut by flying glass (= the 'blade') with there being no
agent responsible.
(2) I also suggest that for the meaning you suggest for katna,
a deagentive fendi
x1 divides into parts x2 by method x3
will suffice. I note that sepli is already deagentive.
"Cut into pieces" will then be katna zei fendi (zei gasnu).
"Cut off" will be katna zei sepli (zei gasnu).
> #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}.
I'm inclined to agree with Nick here.
> #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.
The difference is the presence of the x3, which may be useful, so I
support the change.
> #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},
Or with jinsa.
> 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)
Given curve and jinsa (& therefore curve zei gasnu and jinsa zei gasnu),
I cannot really see the usefulness of lumci. I don't think the x4 place
justifies it.
I haven't been able to find a word for 'wipe, scrub'. If there isn't one,
could lumci be pressed into use?
x1 (object) scrubs, rubs, wipes, brushes (against) x2
Maybe this is going to far from the original meaning of lumci.
> #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.
Yes.
> #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.
Definitely.
> #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.
Absolutely.
> #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
Yes.
> #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.
Given nenri, there is no need for the change. But I would change
x1 from 'agent' to 'agent or instrument' to allow for things like
syringes. Or maybe not. How would we express the notion of a syringe?
No, on reflection I think setca should stay as it is, redundant though
it is.
> #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.
I support the change. The new definition also handles "comeuppance",
which doesn't involve a punisher.
> #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)
Yes.
> #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?
I suggest tcica becomes "mislead":
x1 (event) misleads x2 about x3
or (better) x1 (event) leads x2 to falsely believe x3 of x4
Then deceive can be tcica zei gasnu.
> #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}
I think culno is to do with the idea of being full, while a deagentive
tisna would be to do with a substance entering a container, quite
independently of whether the container becomes full. So fill = cram
(as in "cram the box with papers") would be culno zei gsnu), while
"pour water into the basin" would be tisna zei gasnu. So I support
the change, but suggest the structure and keyword:
tisna substance x1 pours into container x2
> #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.
This stimulate bit is grossly metaphorical.
I advocate:
x1 (pointed object) pokes x2
With some other brivla for 'stimulate', and tunta zei gasnu for agentive
poking.
> #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.
No, I think it should stay is it is, especially if cliva is pared
down to just theme & source places.
> #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...
This is very interesting. In English we can swallow without swallowing
anything. This is a prime case where the x2 might need often to be
zihoed off. I tentatively suggest:
tunlo x1 (agent) gulps
tistuho (tisna zei tuho) x1 (agent) swallows x2
(assuming my proposal for tisna)
-------
And KO JBOBANPEHO