Re: The design of Lojban

[Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>]

coi doi lobypli

It's true, as several have pointed out, that I was exaggerating
when I claimed that Lojban doesn't let you say certain things,
like "women interest me" or "I'm defending my country".  All
such things can be said in Lojban using tanru, lujvo, sumti-
raising or (in the worst case) fu'ivla.

However, Lojban does raise barriers against saying such things
simply.  Also, the barriers in question often seem arbitrary,
gratuitous or IMO even perverse.

=====================================================================
=

It's been suggested that I should use {trina} instead of {cinri}
to describe an interest in non-abstract sumti like women or
music.  I have four problems with this:

(1) If you search the gi'uste in an attempt to find a Lojbanic
translation for the English word "interesting", that search
will promptly yield the result {cinri}; &, *except for the
prohibition against non-abstract sumti*, everything about the
gi'uste definition of {cinri} corresponds to the English word
"interesting".

(2) It's possible to be interested in something, like psycho-
pathology, without feeling any attraction for it.

(3) What property do people (& other non-abstract sumti) have
that allows them to be attractive but that doesn't allow them to
be interesting?  Or how is the {cinri} relation logico-
semantically incompatible with human sumti, when the {trina}
relation is fully compatible?   Why does the x1 place of {cinri}
have to be filled by an abstraction, when the equivalent place of
{trina} does not?

(4) I know what it means for one sumti to interest another, &
what it means for one sumti to attract another, but this kind of
knowledge doesn't help me to predict when abstraction is
required in a gismu place structure & when it is not.  Lojban
doesn't seem to offer any rhyme, reason or consistency on this
point.

=====================================================================
=

It's been suggested that when we think of a person defending
something, we're not really thinking of the {bandu} concept.
I have three problems with this:

(1) If you search the gi'uste in an attempt to find a Lojbanic
translation for the English word "defend", that search will
promptly yield the result {bandu}; &, *except for the prohibitions
against non-event sumti*, everything about the gi'uste definition
of {bandu} corresponds to the English word "defend".

(2) What property do people (& other non-event sumti) have that
disqualifies them from participating in the x1 & x3 places of
{bandu}?  Or how is the {bandu} relation logico-semantically
incompatible with human sumti in those places?  Why do the x3
place of {bandu} & the x2 place of {snura} have to be filled
with events, when the x3 place of {kajde} can be an event, a
state or a property, & when the x1 place of {ckape} & the x3
place of {marbi} can be filled with a non-abstract sumti?

(3) How could I have used my knowledge of what it means to warn,
defend, shelter & be secure to predict these requirements?
Again, Lojban doesn't seem to offer any rhyme, reason or
consistency on this point.

=====================================================================
=

These & similar questions & problems can be frustrating for
some Lojban learners.  However, in calling attention to them,
I don't want to adopt, or to inspire, an overly critical
attitude.  Lojban is far from unique in being unpredictably
different from English.  & I do feel that, on balance, Lojban
lowers more barriers than it raises.

co'omi'e markl.