The talk of a gism= u equivalent of {ai}suggests that there is something centrally wrong here.&= nbsp; A gismu is a truth function, {ai} is a performative operator. N= ever the twain shall meet. If some one says {ai mi klama} he is expressing an intention to go a= nd thereby committing himself and those around him to various things (minim= ally, that he try to go and that involves certain sorts of preparati= ons, etc.). But, if he fails to go, what he said is not false -- not = even if he did not actually have the intention to go when he said it (it is= dishonest in a different way) (It is also no true if he does go, whether o= r not he did so intentionally.). Notice, however, that, taking {brodu= } as "x1 intends to do x2 (action)/ does x2 intentionally" (I'm not actually sure these are the same, but never mind for now), if he says {mi = brodu le nu mi klama} and did not really intend to go, the sentence is fals= e, even if he did in fact go. We want to be able to describe what someone i= s doing when he says {ai}, but there is no description that does what {ai} = does.

From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmai= l.com>
To: lojban@g= ooglegroups.com
Sent:= Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:13 AM

On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:07:53 PM UT= C+4, lojbab wrote:
Gle= ki Arxokuna wrote:
> If the difference between {.ai} and {.au} is so important then why= there
> is no gismu for "intention"?

The intended gismu corresponding to intention was "platu", or perhaps= =20
some compound thereof. I'll accept the possible use of zukte prop= osed=20
by someone else, though I think intention need not be purposive either.

> {zukte} =3D "to intend"? the definition says nothing about that. I= t should be clarified, that is changed.

The gismu list is baselined. We haven't allowed changes merely for=20
clarity for nearly 20 years.
Here is the lack of clari= ty, actually. If there is no equivalent of {.ai} in gismu space we must cre= ate it.
If it's {zukte} then we must clarify it's real meaning.
The question is pretty straightforward: How do I say "I intend ...= " not using {.ai} and having in mind it's clean meaning with no extra impli= cations?

But in point of fact, there is some indication in the list associating= =20
zukte with intention - see the note on the definition of lifri for exam= ple.

> Just {zukte djica}?

Intention is entirely orthogonal to desire, IMNSHO

Another possibility for intention would be nalsnuti, but I'm not sure= =20
that would cover the full range of the attitudinal of intention.

Just a metaphorical tanru?

It isn't, but if it were, so what? When we started the project, t= here=20
was certainly no stigma attached to metaphorical interpretations.=20
Indeed, some of the gismu are explicitly defined with metaphorical use= =20
in mind (e.g. the mention of protrusion for nazbi). Such use of= =20
metaphor has sometimes been deprecated by the community, but we thought= =20
it far preferable to a significantly larger gismu list or more extensiv= e=20
borrowing of words from other languages.

> Or a lujvo again derived from {djica}?

We would of course have used a lujvo made from the metaphoric tanru, if= =20
the concept had been based on such a metaphor.

> And why such a huge bias in favor of cmavo and not predicates in a
> *predicate language*?

What bias? There are over 1300 gismu, and far fewer cmavo.

If you refer to the attitudinals and other members of UI and the lack o= f=20
explicit ties to gismu, please remember that the attitudinal system was= =20
redesigned and greatly expanded *after* the rest of the language was=20
essentially complete, in 1989-1990. JCB's original set of attitud= inals=20
allowed for only a dozen or two possible expressions. I had expan= ded=20
this to around three dozen with intensity markers, but people kept=20
finding holes.

My priority thus was in defining an attitudinal system that worked, and= =20
that could cover the entire range of emotions expressed in any and all= =20
human languages, as well as (insofar as possible) nonverbal expressions= =20
of emotion/attitude as well, and then to go beyond that to ones that=20
someone might WANT to express if the language allowed it.

Once it was done, we had little clue how to define some of the concepts= =20
and distinctions clearly in any language, much less Lojban (and not=20
within the confines of the fixed length LogFlash definition field which= =20
was the then-standard limitation on definitions). (The difficulty= in=20
defining cmavo is why there was no dictionary published in the early=20
1990s, and why CLL was written as a necessary prerequisite to any=20
dictionary effort - until we clearly defined the selma'o, the word=20
definitions were too difficult a problem.)

By the time the attitudinal revision was complete and accepted, the=20
gismu list was complete, and preliminarily baselined; we required votes= =20
at LogFest for any additions, and there was strong resistance to adding= =20
to the set of gismu (and indeed some gismu were deleted in such votes; = I=20
still remain fond of gumri =3D mushroom). But this wasn't seen as= a bias=20
against "predicates", but rather as a strong bias in favor of=20
compounding over adding primitive roots in growing the lexicon. T= he=20
attitudinal system itself reflected that bias, in that a huge number of= =20
attitudes were designed to be expressed by compound cmavo (indicating= =20
intensity as well as opposition and the thoroughly original/untested=20
social/mental/emotional/ physical/sexual (and later-added spiritual)=20
modifiers.

There wasn't any real after-the-fact attempt to match attitudinals and= =20
gismu beyond a vague attempt to be sure that all of the attitudinals=20
could be somehow expressed as compounds or whatever. And indeed, = doing=20
so might have been problematic, because the oppositions expressed in th= e=20
attitudinal system (using nai) wouldn't necessarily represented by=20
nal+gismu (e.g. a'enai e'inai), and we couldn't have made the=20
attitudinal system as comprehensive using as few cmavo, if we had been= =20
so constrained.

lojbab
--=20
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojba= n.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/J3yl4iSPsXAJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
---1412092350-1097626926-1344701600=:97921--