[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reflexivity
la dilyn cusku di'e
> Would anyone care to defend the use of lujvo with {sevzi} to fill the
> function of reflexives in ordinary languages?
I wouldn't, not so much because of the meaning but because of the lujvo
making process. Making lujvo is not automatic, i.e. given a selbri,
there is not a direct way of making the reflexive form with {sevzi}.
One problem is that it is not always x1 and x2 that have to be
identified, e.g. "give myself". Is {mi sezdunda} {mi dunda mi} or {mi
dunda fi mi}? Even if there was an algorithm for it, the fact that you
have to consider rafsi makes it hard to come up with the "right" lujvo.
If it's a simple gismu, it might be easy to simply add sez- or sezy-,
but if it's already a lujvo you may need to consider bracketing. All in
all, it is usually easier to use explicitly {ri} or {ra} rather than
make a lujvo.
> In a natural language, with nouns and verbs, the use of the word for
> "self" to make a reflexive is supportable--there is a definite actor
> "self" refers back to. (How do other languages do this, btw? I don't
> think most use literally the word for "ego", making this usage even worse
> malglico.)
In Spanish, the word for "self" in this sense is the same word as "same",
i.e. "mismo/misma". For "self" in the sense of "ego" we simply use the
first person pronoun "yo" as a noun (also we can use the Latin "ego").
> But in Lojban, the equivalent of a reflexive is just a bridi with some of
> the terbridi filled with identical values. There is not necessarily an
> "agent" to any bridi, the agent need not be in the first terbridi.
I agree.
> There need not even be any sumti to which {sevzi} can even apply. {sevzi}
> is
>
> sevzi sez se'i self
> x1 is a self/ego/id/identity-image of x2
> (cf. cmavo list mi, prenu, menli, jgira)
>
> This seems to apply only to intelligent beings, since only those can have
> an "identity-image" (etc.).
I don't know whether {sevzi} works for the prefix auto-. It should, but
I agree that the definition seems to indicate another meaning.
> May I suggest lujvo with {du} instead?
I don't think {du} is a good choice, it is mainly for mathematical
formulas (or formulae, if you prefer) and the less it shows up in the
real world, the better.
> Or maybe the definition of {sevzi} should be radically changed instead.
Maybe. The problem really is that there is no simple way to make a lujvo
that only identifies two places. If the VOhAs had rafsi, there could be
some convention for this, but they don't.
Jorge
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu
To: Nefud the Delirious <nefud@IO.COM>
Dylan Thurston wrote:
>> litru le ru'u toknu
>
>No, that means "travel in the encircling oven", or something; in any
>case, not what I wanted. With a tense,
>
> litru ru'u le toknu
>or
> litru mo'iru'u le toknu
>
>or, if you want to fill the x2 place of litru, perhaps
>
> litru le stizu ru'u le toknu
Too bad you can't se-convert the tenses, or you could say:
*litru le jai seru'u toknu
The closest equivalent I can think of to "*seru'u" would be "ne'i"
litru le jai ne'i toknu
I think this is logically correct; the x2 place of litru is looking for a
path, so "le jai ne'i toknu" must be the path which has an oven inside it.
But it's pretty far from my natlang intuitions, and it might be misusing
ne'i, too; I'm not sure.
____
Chris Bogart \ / ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
Quetzal Consulting \/ cbogart@quetzal.com
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: ci cribe
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Nefud the Delirious <nefud@IO.COM>
In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 09 May 95 13:53:59 EDT.)
Jorge:
> And:
> > > To get the second meaning, I would say:
> > > le ci cribe cu batci rori
> > This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to me to mean
> > "Each of the three bears bit each of itself" - daft.
> Well, I tried to give it some meaning. I don't know what is
> the meaning of quantifying a variable that is already quantified.
> What do these mean:
> ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci ro da
> ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci su'o da
> ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci re da
> I would say they mean, respectively:
> Each bear bit each bear.
> Each bear bit at least one of the bears.
> Each bear bit two of the bears.
I think this is a good rule of interpretation (given that Lojban
is too advanced in its design for any kind of significant revision).
I don't think it falls out from the present rule system (& this is
what I meant when I said it makes no sense), but I would support
adding such a rule.
----
shaw haw me hay And
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: coi (& tensors, in English, readable :))
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Nefud the Delirious <nefud@IO.COM>
la goran cusku di'e
> > > .i xu da pe rodo klama la intersekcn. pe la glazgob.
> >
> > i mi na ji'a djuno le du'u ibu mokau
>
> .i .ibu ji'a xarfiknei nunpe'i .i ri brarai fo loi go'i .i .ibu pe le
> cabna'a cu stuzi la glazgob. pe la sunko'orgu'e .i ba'a lo su'omuki'omei
> cu zvati .i .ibu detri li 8;95
i mi nelci le nu tcidu le'e xarfi'a i ku'i mi noroi zvati lo xarfiknei
nunpe'i i ma fasnu fau lo nunpe'i i xu vecnu loi xarfi'a cukta
i ji'a mo
> But the point is, we ba'e don't have the mechanism to cope with
> distances. A change is needed, yours or mine or someone elses, but there
> is definitely a hole to plug.
I agree, of course.
> BTW, I don't think it would fit into BAI.
> BAI can be converted, and I wouldn't really know what to do with sete'i
> or tete'i... Every possible meaning eludes my consciousness very
> conscientiously. Dunno.
Yes, when I thought more about it, it seemed a bit strained there.
It would be strange that a BAI should interact directly with the
tenses, instead of with the selbri, like a regular BAI.
> Syntax, as I see it, looks a lot like FAhA,
> though the meaning is something completely different. Not like BAI.
It can't very well be a FAhA. For one, those are space tenses only, but
more importantly, te'i wouldn't have anything to do as a tense (selbri
tcita), the magnitude of displacement there is shown by VAs and ZIs. I
don't see in what way it could be said to have FAhA grammar, because
te'i wouldn't form compound tenses happily.
I suppose one could make a special selmaho for it, but that's not very
appealing. I much prefer to use for distances the ones we already have
to show indefinite distances (but maybe I already mentioned that :).
Jorge
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Nefud the Delirious <nefud@IO.COM>
> Sorry, I meant {le ka tu'a do no ka'e seljmi} or {le ka me do no ka'e
> seljmi}. What's the difference between these two?
>
> co'o mi'e. dilyn.
{tu'a do} is "some fact about/concerning you", while {lo me do} is
"something related to you", which could include {tu'a do}, but in
general I would expect some more concrete object.
Jorge
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu
X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Nefud the Delirious <nefud@IO.COM>
> But I was asking about the difference
> between {le} and {lo} (which seems to parallel the difference between
> {lei} and {loi}). I didn't quite follow xorxes' explanation:
>
> > In the other case, I could have said {pa le betfu} instead of
> > {lo betfu}, but I preferred the shorter one. In any case, I want
> > to individuate them: Every time, that _one_ of the belies explodes...
>
> Does {lo} imply singularity? I would think that either {le betfu} or {lo
> betfu} could refer to one or more than one stomach, the only difference
> being whether the things actually are stomachs or only described that
> way.
Both can refer to one or more. {le} refers to each and every one, of those
you have in mind. {lo} refers to at least one, of those that are. {lo} does
not imply singularity, but only makes a claim about at least one. (You
claim that it is true for one, without denying that it can be true for
more.)
{pa le betfu} means "one of the stomachs". I could also say {su'o le betfu},
"at least one of the stomachs", or {pa lo betfu}, "one stomach" = "one of
all stomachs there are".
> It seems like {co'a spoja fa le betfu} would be
> slightly wrong, since the explosions don't all happen at once. Is this
> what you're trying to say?
le betfu co'a spoja
Each of the stomachs starts to explode.
lo betfu co'a spoja
Some stomach starts to explode. (Maybe others do too, but I claim
that at least one does.)
lei betfu co'a spoja
The stomachs start to explode. (The mass of them starts to
explode, not each of them. Not all of them explode at the same
time, so the mass starts to explode when the first one explodes.)
loi betfu co'a spoja
Some stomachs start to explode. (An unspecified group of stomachs
starts to explode.)
> How does {co'a spoja fa lei betfu ba le lorpanzi} stack up?
be
{co'a spoja} is the selbri
{lei betfu be lei lorpanzi} is the sumti, that goes in the x1 of {spoja}.
{lei lorpanzi} goes in the x2 of {betfu}.
> Let me voice a premature opinion. Saying {lo crida} makes just as much
> sense as {le fetygunse ku joi le fetlorxu cu tavla simxu}; neither can be
> true in this world, but could be used in a story (or, I suppose, by
> someone that believes in the referents).
That's right. If there is something that crida, then {lo crida} can refer
to it. Whether something can be said to crida or not, that depends on how
the speakers understand the language. It would be strange to have a word
for a relationship that holds among no referents.
{lo crida} is at least one of the things that are in relationship {crida}
with a mythos/religion, according to the gismu list.
> > > > .i badri je klaku klama fo le cmana .ize'iku lo kilpezli ly batci
> > > > .i zo pof .i ly spoja
>
> .i ke'u.uanai ma badri je klaku klama
i li'azo'o le lorxu cu go'i
> e'u do cilre lei bangu .i zo'o zo'onai ro bangu te djuno be do cu
> banri'a .ai le ka do na ka'e seljmi
>
> Clever (especially getting them both 79 columns). But:
>
> Should the first {do} be {ko}?
In my opinion it is not necessary, because {e'u} already shows that
it is not an indicative sentence.
These types of effect of UIs have not been very well established yet,
but I think it is clear that some UIs have a strong effect in this
refard: e'u, ai, a'o, au, etc. I don't think we can say that bridi
with these indicators claim what the bridi says without them.
> The x2 of jimpe is a fact, not a person. Shouldn't it be {le ka ma do na
> ka'e seljmi}? ({ma do} standing for {le do selsku} or {le do te djuno}.)
I think you mean something other than {ma}, which is the question sumti.
Maybe {le ka tu'a do na ka'e seljmi} or {le ka le me do na ka'e seljmi}.
> co'o mi'e dilyn. TRS,ton.
co'o mi'e xorxes
Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 10:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dylan Thurston <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: Reflexivity
On Mon, 15 May 1995, Logical Language Group wrote:
> Well there is some looseness to lujvo semantics. But in any case, I think
> that sevzi-broda implies some kind of reflecive on the x1 place while
> sevzi-se-broda would imply one on the x2 place etc. It is not a question
> of agenthood, but of pointing out the place to reflex.
Well, I understand looseness, but this just seems a little ridiculous to
me. If I say {le sezlu'i toknu} for "the self-cleaning oven" (to use a
lujvo from the jvoste), I don't see any self, ego, or identity-image in
sight.
To say this as a bridi would be
le toknu ri lumci
or as a sumti
le toknu poi ke'a ke'a lumci
I don't know how to say it as a sumti without a relative clause.
But in any case, {sevzi} does not appear.
Which is not to deny the usefulness of lujvo formed with it. I just
think either the definition should be changed or another gismu should be
chosen to make it less malglico.
Not all the lujvo in the jvoste are as inappropriate: {sezypa'i}, for
instance, could be glossed as {da prami le da sevzi}; anything that can
love itself has a "self-image", and can be said to love that. (Should
{sezypa'i} have negative connotations, btw?) But if you gloss {sezlu'i}
as {da lumci le da sevzi de} it really seems a bit strained, unless
{sevzi} can apply to ovens as well; but then I don't know what it would
mean other than {du}.
co'o mi'e. dilyn.
(I really think there is a little vowel there (it's a vowel, whether or
not Lojban calls it one), I believe because of the awkwardness of the
l-n combination otherwise. But it's often hard to tell the combination
"short vowel+glide" from "vocalic glide" in any case.)