instrumental places

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

mark.vines@wholefoods.com asked on Lojban List
>GISMU   ENGLISH GLOSS   INSTRUMENTAL PLACE
>
>dakfu   knife           x1
>jinci   shears          x1
>mruli   hammer          x1   (x4 is agent)
>sance   sound           x2   (x2 can be agent or instrument?)
>darxi   hit             x3   (x1 is agent)
>ganse   sense           x3   (x1 is observer)
>plixa   plow            x3   (x1 is agent)
>tivni   television      x4   (x1 is agent)
>spali   polish          x4   (x1 is agent)
>sarji   support         x4   (x1 can be agent or instrument?)
>klama   go              x5   (x1 is agent & patient)
>
>Clearly there has been no effort to associate instrumental arguments
>with a particular position in gismu place structures.  If anything,
>there has been an effort to avoid consistent association of "case"
>with place.
>
>My question is:  When the gismu place structures were designed, how
>were the instrumental places chosen?

Certainly NOT with consideration as to whether they were "instrumental"
or not.  I would say that when we recognized that there was a dichotomy
between agent and instrument, we explicitly separated the two into
separate places.  Thus sance and sarji above, if they are truly
ambiguous, are flawed (I am not sure that either is agentive, though.
When "mi sarji la lojban" I think of myself as serving both roles at
once, and hence the instrumental dominates, since in Lojban an
instrument acting under its own volition is a meaningful concept
(zukte).

mruli/jinci/dakfu are examples of tutci - tools which are presumed to
need wielding in order to serve their function.  Other gismu in the
instrumental hierarchy besides tutci are cabra, minji, and zukte (this
set of 4 words dates from the very first LogFest here in Fairfax, the
year before we started the split off from TLI).  When we made gismu, we
tried to make all gismu of one of these types have similar place
structures.  The result was what Jorge calls "fat gismu", gismu that
have several places that are almost bever used.  But even before Jorge
got involved, this particular mass of fat was trimmed out, and to the
extent there are inconsistencies in the gismu list, it is because we did
not trim bearing in mind the original reason why we added agents and
instruments both into a gismu structure.

But in general, if the empahsis is on the "toolness", then there is no
agent and the instrumental will be in x1.  If the emphasis is on
function, then the instrument is an oblique place, generally "at the
end" unless we had some reason to put another oblique place after it,
and the agent is in x1.

Looking over the above, I feel this explanation is less coherent than it
should be, but hope you will ask further if it isn't clear.

lojbab
            lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";