<mahi>

["Steven M. Belknap" <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

la bab.cusku dihe
>Recently, several people have said that they think it inconsistent for
>Lojban to include a `by standard' place for only some gismu.  Either
>all (or all `relevant') gismu should carry the place, or none.
>Certainly, you can always use {ma'i} to convey the standard.

A prediction: Fluent lojban speakers will ignore the built-in "by-standard"
place, and will use <mahi> instead.

>The reason for providing some gismu with a `by standard' place is to
>bring the notion of a standard closer to the attention to the speaker
>and listener.

Understood. This does not seem like a compelling reason to me.

>A place is a part of a gismu.  When you speak, you yearn to fill it.
>It is in your mind and in the mind of your listener, even if it is
>filled by {zo'e} or is not said.  (Or at least, this is what should
>happen; I have a hard time remembering the first place of a gismu, let
>along the fifth.)

But if you can't remember where and if a gismu has a standard place, how
does this bring the notion of a standard closer to the attention of speaker
& listener? Its like trying to remember if <le stylo> and <la chat> in
French are masculine or feminine.

>
>When you speak, you do not expect yourself to yearn so strongly to use
>all of selma'o BAI in your utterance.  Not at all.  None those
>possible notions will be as close to mind as a place.

Why should "standard" be more important than the other modifier concepts
embodied in the selmaho BAI?

>
>Remember, a gismu is always a relationship among all its places.
>Unless overtly removed using the (much deprecated) {zi'o}, a place is
>part of the meaning of a gismu.  English is not quite like this.
>

Sure, but why only 70 gismu? Are you claiming that none of the
"standardless" gismu have a stronger argument supporting their use of a
"standard" place than the 70 gismu that do? If so, I want to know how the
decisions were made. There seems to be a lot of aribitrariness or
randomness.

>A language should make it clear that `by standard' is always closely
>relevant to at least some concepts.
>

I would prefer that lojban be neutral as to which gismu need a `by
standard' place and which require a <mahi>.

>As for the current set of words with `by standard' --- I am not too
>inclined to make many changes.  For one, the current inconsistencies
>will enable us to find out in five or ten years if my Whorfian
>prediction really is true, that fluent Lojban speakers and listeners
>will more often consider a standard when they speak or hear a gismu
>that has a `by standard' place, than when they speak or hear a gismu
>that lacks such a place.

This is an interesting point which I hadn't considered. Perhaps if the
etymology of the places of the gismu were explained, things would make more
sense. But wouldn't it be a purer test of Sapir-Whorf to "standardize the
standards" by either forcing the use of ma'i for all gismu or including a
standard place for *all* (without exception), and then seeing what patterns
of usage emerge? It would be interesting, for example, if native Deutch
speakers used standards when talking about <blanu> and native Italian
speakers used standards when talking about <cinmo>. More interesting, I
suspect, than how lojban speakers would respond to arbitrary standard
places thrust upon them.


cohomihe la stivn


Steven M. Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

email: sbelknap@uic.edu
Voice: 309/671-3403
Fax:   309/671-8413