polysemy [Was: Re: <djuno> & howabout <krici>? (Was Knowledge &

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

To clarify, I consider a brivla polysemous if sometimes it means one
thing and sometimes another. Translate bridi with {cucli} into
logical form, and sometimes you'll need to use one method and another
time another.

Probably it leads to ambiguity sometimes.

--&&&

> >> It is in JCB's Loglan books. I think it is mentioned in the intro chapter
> >> of Cowan's grammer as well. Could you give an example of an exception to
> >> what is intended to be a core principle of the language?
> >
> >I can't give you examples of officially & wittingly countenanced
> >exceptions. But in our discussions of the last few weeks we have
> >found cases where polysemy was one possible solution to certain
> >conflicts within grammar & usage. Off the top of my head, the only
> >one I can remember is cucli ("curious"), where the meaning of cucli
> >various according to the grammatical properties of its sumti
> >(sdpecifically, iirc, whether x2 is a du`u clause containing {kau}).
> >
> >I've not studied the baselined giu`ste thoroughly, but I suspect that
> >there is a lot of similar polysemy.
>
> Ah, now that you have explained yourself...
> I agree that in some sense the variation in meaning between filling a place
> with an abstraction vs an object might be consider polysemy.  However, I
> hope you will admit that the range of the meaning(s) is relatively small
> and confined only the the relationship of that one place with the rest of
> the predicate.  The Loglan community has historically been rather blind about
> abstractions vs. sumti raising as well, though I think we have gone several
> major steps beyond JCB and indeed beyond natlangs in general in attending to
> the issue and making it POSSIBLE to resolve it, should we ever have
> fastidious enough speakers who can recognize when they are raising.
>
> AS for the specifics of including kau, we are aware and I think agreed that
> the inclusion of many of the attitudinals and discursives can affect at
> minimum the truth functional nature of a bridi.  I have some heartburn at
> a discursive opeing up polysemy if it happens (though I still think that in
> the case you mentioned, the book simply has a sumti-raising error), but I
> don't think that this is necessarily polysemy in the wordlist per se rather
> than a complex effect of the cmavo causing the issue.