Received: from mail-ob0-f190.google.com ([209.85.214.190]:33566) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YtdNx-0004M1-Dd for lojban-beginners-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 16 May 2015 07:48:22 -0700 Received: by obcuy5 with SMTP id uy5sf16365883obc.0 for ; Sat, 16 May 2015 07:48:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=xBu4aMcOQHISQ5RygdVFKslgROOpMVonK7WZlOespNU=; b=iapVVW10Uz11FRFzUqcSoPIpXSOuMw4dQ0HOS471zaWJgk3t2sN8R+GG9n3ShyYMO4 fCCLrrHSuS72wgJ+mFudLUnpUqvFsd3TiNJ3YJx2tiDYcxCilqagG6rJ9ecXLwL+27w/ 0wiGx101ij/NPB0AafirTx/Kf/DfByiSOrvQ2tcw9OVRqcvhwusBsKjCyKPK8N+S5tuy IU8M7qzDJ1/qVYLGG9ZsAQBVyIknZ8NdUIv17BzyCY40vF7juNcSiyxLJNrGcDTUnjHQ MSQUi0A5ixVKHJ0BGrhZZdMiZlyUonUyKLy96GzS11wXHOEawzy6mi9sxMcXYF+kuyM7 PBeQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=xBu4aMcOQHISQ5RygdVFKslgROOpMVonK7WZlOespNU=; b=f7ITzUuGsx0xPa1q1bPJhUlFMciqNDONP0B8tpxxb4Xia6GEJsq+/917be8DRr5NJH dQ5bFWmfuXrW8rXQ/jJ/GwIMQ7qqrt/c6rhIXKnJ15XfPoUrbBd8c5SaFKvwHfv+wq3X BHnXFUoJ2jG/X8nUWKMOa5fmOQfrxTcJFmPnyu0xp1jZOwSxQFgFnL1y4bIT6qQ/N/58 q3/BN/crcD+XMIauloqGFB6TjGCU0xlZzfumP2XN8zQoUhGSfOZk+Trgu7EhcVY3W0hb s5Y1dGDigRdkNkj3B4CLVycVqeIc5OtOb6LfxOLo/0g0zfv1w5Nt8DzsILBcvyD6nNri fDDQ== X-Received: by 10.140.91.47 with SMTP id y44mr234628qgd.39.1431787691417; Sat, 16 May 2015 07:48:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.35.199 with SMTP id n65ls1338907qgn.21.gmail; Sat, 16 May 2015 07:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.19.196 with SMTP id 62mr235673qgh.13.1431787690915; Sat, 16 May 2015 07:48:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 07:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: TR NS To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <7246a2f2-8fe9-4db2-b104-c825409e634a@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Does the argument limit lead to half-ass words? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_48_2141357542.1431787690197" X-Original-Sender: transfire@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_48_2141357542.1431787690197 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_49_117768321.1431787690197" ------=_Part_49_117768321.1431787690197 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 2:22:37 AM UTC-4, la gleki wrote: > > > > 2015-05-16 5:10 GMT+03:00 TR NS >: > >> In my recent studies of Lojban (and Loglan) I've started to question the= =20 >> efficacy of the argument system. One the things that struck me was the w= ord=20 >> for "run". >> >> barja x1 runs on x2 using limbs x3 with gait x4=20 >> > > {bajra} ({lo barja} is a tavern, bar) > Ha! I was wondering why the rafsi was `baj` ;-) =20 > > >> That seems a strange definition. I can't really think of single time I= =20 >> ever needed to express that the running was done with anything other the= n=20 >> legs. >> > > I watched many videos on Youtube where people were able to run using thei= r=20 > hands. Besides, horses don't necessarily have hands and feet. > =20 > >> Perhaps it would be useful when talking about Oscar Pistorius Olympic=20 >> races, but that's a rather rare case! >> > > So we'll use all places of this verb very seldom! Not all places are=20 > always needed. > =20 > >> When I think of running, it tends to be *to* some place or at least *via= *=20 >> some path. The word "barja" really doesn't seem like the idea of running= .=20 >> It seems more akin to "treading", as in "running on a tread mill", since= =20 >> the definition has no arguments whatsoever for origin or destination. >> > > Yes, indeed. Conciseness of English definitions can sometimes lead to=20 > their incorrect interpretations. > Here is one of my examples (not sure where I got it): > > xu do su'o roi senva lo ka bajra lo jdika grana lo xance be do =E2=80=94 = Have you=20 > ever dreamt of running on your hands on a narrow rod? > > Yea, I am not saying the limbs isn't a valid argument. It is. It's just=20 that it seems a less useful than a "to", "from" or "via". =20 > >> But I suspect that is not what the definer really had in mind. I think= =20 >> rather, those arguments were left out (as if we could sensibly talk abou= t=20 >> running without them) because the definition needed to stay under five= =20 >> arguments and the definer already knew that a lujvo could be formed with= =20 >> "klama". And so we find the word "bajykla". >> >> bajykla k1 runs to destination k2 from origin k3 via route k4 using= =20 >> limbs b3 with gait b4=20 >> >> This word strikes me as what running is really all about. But notice we= =20 >> lost the surface (x2) argument. Moreover, I could easily imagine an=20 >> additional speed argument. >> >> That lead me to wonder if the ordinal argument system is really=20 >> sufficient. "Running" is a concept and everything that can be reasonably= =20 >> associated with the concept should be accounted for in the possible=20 >> arguments. >> > > I'm sure, you are not going to add places for what was the weather while= =20 > the person was running or what was the political situation in Berguland a= t=20 > that time. All of those factors could make running somewhat different and= =20 > result in different results (the weather could change the route etc.) > Right. The weather isn't integral to the idea of running. That's really=20 what I am getting at. It seems like the idea of running has been broken up= =20 too much so that integral aspects of the concept have been divided across= =20 two words, not because they make sense in themselves, but just to fit a=20 grammar limitation.=20 Let me give an example in the opposite direction to clarify what I mean.=20 Why is "klama" defined as: x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using=20 means/vehicle x5. Why not instead have four simpler words for: x1 goes to destination x2 x1 comes from origin x2 x1 traverses route x2 x1 uses/employs x2 for purpose x3 Then combine these to make a lujvo equivalent to "klama". (Note the last=20 already exists as `pilno`.) Clearly this is just as doable as `bajykla`.=20 And to our advantage we have words we can use without extraneous arguments= =20 -- as you said, "Not all places are always needed." > While it's kind of neat how "bajykla" can be composed form "barja" and=20 >> "klama", being *neat* isn't high in my list of criteria for being well= =20 >> defined. >> >> On top of this, reading about Modal Tags, that really hammered home to m= e=20 >> that the argument system has some holes. I don't see how a well defined= =20 >> predicate could ever make sense with dynamically added arguments. If the= y=20 >> made sense they should already be part of the predicate's definition. (O= f=20 >> course, some modals are basically short-cuts for making relative clauses= =20 >> and not so much case tags at all. These stand out b/c they are universal= ly=20 >> applicable to just about any predicate.) >> >> In short, it seems like the limitation of keeping the number of argument= s=20 >> within a small range (generally five) is an arbitrary provision that cau= ses=20 >> some concepts to be chopped-up into equally arbitrary partial concepts. = Of=20 >> course, the converse issue would be how to handle predicates with=20 >> potentially a dozen arguments when it is already difficult enough to rec= all=20 >> the fourth or fifth? >> > > Just use several verbs. You can easily say {mi bajra lo jdika grana lo=20 > xance gi'e klama do ...}=20 > Sure. But I am not asking about the technical how to deal with it in the=20 current structure of the language. Rather, I am wondering about a more=20 philosophical question. i.e. Is "bajra" a real concept? Or is it merely a= =20 "partial-concept" that exists only because of limitations of the grammar?= =20 And if we were to make it complete, something more like `bajykla`, but with= =20 even a few more arguments, e.g. x1 runs to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 at speed x5 on=20 surface x6 using limbs x7 with gait x8 How could such long predicates be manageable? --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_49_117768321.1431787690197 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 2:22:37 AM UTC-4, la = gleki wrote:
<= br>

2015-05-16 5:10 GMT+03:00 TR NS <tra= n...@gmail.com>:
In my= recent studies of Lojban (and Loglan) I've started to question the efficac= y of the argument system. One the things that struck me was the word for "r= un".

    barja x1 runs on x2 using limbs x= 3 with gait x4 

{bajra} ({= lo barja} is a tavern, bar)

Ha! I was wondering why the rafsi was `baj` ;-)
 


That seems a strange definition. I can't really think of s= ingle time I ever needed to express that the running was done with anything= other then legs.

I watched man= y videos on Youtube where people were able to run using their hands. Beside= s, horses don't necessarily have hands and feet.
 
Perhaps it would be useful when talking about Oscar Pistori= us Olympic races, but that's a rather rare case!

So we'll use all places of this verb very seldom! No= t all places are always needed.
 
When I think of running, it tends to be *to* some place = or at least *via* some path. The word "barja" really doesn't seem like the = idea of running. It seems more akin to "treading", as in "running on a trea= d mill", since the definition has no arguments whatsoever for origin or des= tination.

Yes, indeed. Concisen= ess of English definitions can sometimes lead to their incorrect interpreta= tions.
Here is one of my examples (not sure where I got it):

xu do su'o roi senva lo ka bajra lo jdika grana l= o xance be do =E2=80=94 Have you ever dreamt of running on your hands on a = narrow rod?

<= br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">Yea, I am not saying the limbs isn't= a valid argument. It is. It's just that it seems a less useful than a "to"= , "from" or "via".
  

But I suspect that = is not what the definer really had in mind. I think rather, those arguments= were left out (as if we could sensibly talk about running without them) be= cause the definition needed to stay under five arguments and the definer al= ready knew that a lujvo could be formed with "klama". And so we find the wo= rd "bajykla".

    bajykla k1 runs to des= tination k2 from origin k3 via route k4 using limbs b3 with gait b4

This word strikes me as what running is really all about. But notic= e we lost the surface (x2) argument. Moreover, I could easily imagine an ad= ditional speed argument.

That lead me to wonder if= the ordinal argument system is really sufficient. "Running" is a concept a= nd everything that can be reasonably associated with the concept should be = accounted for in the possible arguments.

<= /div>
I'm sure, you are not going to add places for what was the weathe= r while the person was running or what was the political situation in Bergu= land at that time. All of those factors could make running somewhat differe= nt and result in different results (the weather could change the route etc.= )

Right. The weathe= r isn't integral to the idea of running. That's really what I am getting at= . It seems like the idea of running has been broken up too much so that int= egral aspects of the concept have been divided across two words, not becaus= e they make sense in themselves, but just to fit a grammar limitation. = ;

Let me give an example in the opposite direction= to clarify what I mean. Why is "klama" defined as:

    x1 comes/goes to = destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5.

Why not instead have four simpler words for:

    x1 goes to destination x2
<= span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
    x1 comes from origin x2
=
    x1 traverses route x2

&n= bsp;   x1 uses/employs x2 for purpose x3

Then combine these to = make a lujvo equivalent to "klama". (Note the last already exists as `pilno= `.) Clearly this is just as doable as `bajykla`. And to our advantage we ha= ve words we can use without extraneous arguments -- as you said, "Not all p= laces are always needed."


While it's kind of neat how "bajykla" can b= e composed form "barja" and "klama", being *neat* isn't high in my list of = criteria for being well defined.

On top of this, r= eading about Modal Tags, that really hammered home to me that the argument = system has some holes. I don't see how a well defined predicate could ever = make sense with dynamically added arguments. If they made sense they should= already be part of the predicate's definition. (Of course, some modals are= basically short-cuts for making relative clauses and not so much case tags= at all. These stand out b/c they are universally applicable to just about = any predicate.)

In short, it seems like the limita= tion of keeping the number of arguments within a small range (generally fiv= e) is an arbitrary provision that causes some concepts to be chopped-up int= o equally arbitrary partial concepts.  Of course, the converse issue w= ould be how to handle predicates with potentially a dozen arguments when it= is already difficult enough to recall the fourth or fifth?

Just use several verbs. You can easily say {mi= bajra lo jdika grana lo xance gi'e klama do ...} 

Sure. But I am not asking about the te= chnical how to deal with it in the current structure of the language. Rathe= r, I am wondering about a more philosophical question. i.e. Is "bajra" a re= al concept? Or is it merely a "partial-concept" that exists only because of= limitations of the grammar? And if we were to make it complete, something = more like `bajykla`, but with even a few more arguments, e.g.

&nbs= p;   x1 runs to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 at speed x5= on surface x6 using limbs x7 with gait x8

How could such long predi= cates be manageable?








<= /div>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lo= jban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_49_117768321.1431787690197-- ------=_Part_48_2141357542.1431787690197--