Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.218 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.218;
Message-ID: <555BC2DD.1080708@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:10:21 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Does the argument limit lead to half-ass words?
References: <7246a2f2-8fe9-4db2-b104-c825409e634a@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+hxstqSaJtkGFzvs4ikyoa=NtkzV4_bvyUCeq1NDQKjhg@mail.gmail.com> <UeoS1q00D56Cr6M01eoT2z>
In-Reply-To: <UeoS1q00D56Cr6M01eoT2z>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 5/16/2015 10:48 AM, TR NS wrote:
> 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 <tran...@gmail.com>:
>
>         In my recent studies of Lojban (and Loglan) I've started to
>         question the efficacy of the argument system. One the things
>         that struck me was the word for "run".
>
>              barja x1 runs on x2 using limbs x3 with gait x4
>
>
>     {bajra} ({lo barja} is a tavern, bar)
>
>
> Ha! I was wondering why the rafsi was `baj` ;-)

bajra could have been assigned either baj or bar, but there were usually=20
multiple candidates for each rafsi, and the tradeoffs were complex=20
(probably too complex to be worth explaining at this point).

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

bajra is intended to cover more than one kind of human locomotion, as=20
the gait place indicates.

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

Rare for whom?  Not that rarity of expressing a given place was of prime=20
importance, since that is often associated with the particular language=20
and lexical item (and bajra is not the same as the English "run")

>     So we'll use all places of this verb very seldom! Not all places are
>     always needed.

Correct.  All places are implicit to the concept, but context often=20
makes explicit usage unnecessary.  Humans have only 2 legs and seldom=20
"run" using anything but both of their legs.  We also rarely talk about=20
human gaits, unless they are abnormal.

>         When I think of running, it tends to be *to* some place or at
>         least *via* some path.

Then you are thinking of runningly-going, not running itself.  To/from=20
are not necessarily part of running, or it would be meaningless to talk=20
of "running in place".

> The word "barja" really doesn't seem like
>         the idea of running. It seems more akin to "treading",

"tread" is more strongly associated with walking, rather than running,=20
and is ambiguous between a particular kind/gait of walking and the=20
walking itself.

>     Yes, indeed. Conciseness of English definitions can sometimes lead
>     to 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 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
> that it seems a less useful than a "to", "from" or "via".

We have "klama" and "muvdu" and "benji" for referring to interactions=20
between origins and destinations.  "bajra" is not such an interaction,=20
but is an interaction between an animate "actor", the limbs being used=20
and the surface that the limbs are being used on (and gait, which is=20
more important with more than 2 limbs).  bajra is thus conceptually=20
closer to cadzu and cpare than to klama.

>         But I suspect that is not what the definer really had in mind.

I was the definer.  Usefulness was not always the main consideration.=20
Conceptual similarities and differences from other words/concepts,=20
coverage of semantic space, usefulness in compounding are just a few of=20
the other considerations.

> I
>         think rather, those arguments were left out (as if we could
>         sensibly talk about running without them) because the definition
>         needed to stay under five arguments and the definer already knew
>         that a lujvo could be formed with "klama". And so we find the
>         word "bajykla".

No.  There is no magic about the number 5.  For a short period, I think=20
it was the word pikta that had 6 places, and it made perfect sense at=20
the time.

There was a period where I considered adding standards places to a lot=20
of words, but when I tried I realized that my criteria were too=20
subjective, and I backed most of them out. Places were also=20
added/removed in contrast to other words of similar meaning.

>              bajykla k1 runs to destination 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
>         notice we lost the surface (x2) argument. Moreover, I could
>         easily imagine an additional speed argument.
>
>         That lead me to wonder if the ordinal argument system is really
>         sufficient. "Running" is a concept and everything that can be
>         reasonably associated with the concept should be accounted for
>         in the possible arguments.

That depends on what is essential to the concept.

>     I'm sure, you are not going to add places for what was the weather
>     while the person was running or what was the political situation in
>     Berguland at that time.

Weather and politics are irrelevant to whether a person is running or=20
not; a surface and limbs are not.

> All of those factors could make running
>     somewhat different and result in different results (the weather
>     could change the route etc.)

I suspect you are too strongly thinking of the English word.  "running"=20
has a meaning in politics (whether in Berguland or not), but that kind=20
of has nothing to do with limbs, and usually not much to do with weather.

> Right. The weather 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 integral aspects of the concept have been divided
> across two words, not because 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
>
>      x1 comes from origin x2
>
>      x1 traverses route x2
>
>      x1 uses/employs x2 for purpose x3

Because it is not the case that one can have a destination without also=20
having an origin and a route.  It is possible that you only care about=20
the origin or the route, because others are implicit, but they all are=20
part of the concept.

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

My priorities were not necessarily the same as yours.

>         On top of this, reading 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.)

Modal tags are primarily NOT case tags, but the boundary between the two=20
was rather fraught (and tied up in the history of Loglan/Lojban)

>         In short, it seems like the limitation of keeping the number of
>         arguments within a small range (generally five) is an arbitrary
>         provision

Yes, it would be.

>         that causes some concepts to be chopped-up into
>         equally arbitrary partial concepts.

Arbitrary in a sense, but not equally arbitrary.

> Of course, the converse
>         issue would be how to handle predicates with potentially a dozen
>         arguments when it is already difficult enough to recall the
>         fourth or fifth?

That would certainly be a consideration.  If it is difficult to recall a=20
place, it does suggest that it may not be necessary.  But you have to be=20
sure you are working with the correct concept.  If you are thinking=20
about running involving a destination, you are not really thinking of=20
bajra, but rather bajykla.

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

Lojban does not have verbs (or nouns).  It has predicates.  That is a=20
fundamental distinction.

> Sure. But I am not asking about the technical how to deal with it in the
> current structure of the language. Rather, I am wondering about a more
> philosophical question.  i.e. Is "bajra" a real 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.
>
>      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 predicates be manageable?

If they were important, they would probably be managed and therefore=20
manageable.

In English, verbs have an arbitrary and pretty large number of possible=20
prepositions that they can be linked with.  In a sense, all of those=20
prepositions are "places" (or they might be thought of as modals or case=20
tags), although there is a lot of polysemy.  When you learn a word, you=20
implicitly have to learn all the meanings of all the prepositions that=20
may be linked with it, yet no one ever memorizes such a list for any word.

lojbab

--=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.