Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:50:19 -0800 (PST)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <1704f503-32c7-48cf-9b68-4c438948385d@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <50F2D56C.8040405@lojban.org>
References: <d21ad182-d52e-4a61-8975-1c6f53d75211@googlegroups.com>
 <50F2D56C.8040405@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] What is the source of gismu *definitions*?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_734_24790519.1358175019119"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_734_24790519.1358175019119
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

doi lojbab mi ckire do .io lo ka ciksi so'a da

As usual this topic is turning into a rant. But that was predictable and=20
unavoidable.


On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:40:28 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
>
> la gleki wrote:=20
> > Every Lojbanist understands that gismu denote predicates that are highl=
y=20
> > practical.=20
> > e.g. {pilno} includes a goal as pilno3. Indeed, how can we imagine usin=
g=20
> > something without a goal?=20
> >=20
> > My question is who collected those definitions?=20
>
> Me.=20
>
> > Was it JCB?=20
>
>  > How was this gimste formed?=20
>
> JCB set the place structures for the TLI Loglan words.  His general=20
> philosophy of doing so was set forth in his books Loglan 1 and Loglan 2,=
=20
> though he didn't always follow his own principles.=20
>
> I started with JCB's list, but greatly modified it, both adding and=20
> deleting words.  As such, there are half-again as many gismu as there=20
> were in TLI Loglan of the time.  In very few cases can I tell you for=20
> certain the specific reason I added certain words, though for the=20
> culture words I made an attempt to be systematic.  A large chunk was=20
> added in 1988 as a result of Athelstan doing a thorough analysis based=20
> on Roget's thesaurus, to make sure that we had good coverage of all=20
> semantic domains.=20
>
> During the period from about 1990-1994, I subjected all change proposals=
=20
> to the LogFest attendees, representing the community, for approval.  In=
=20
> the latter two years, a faction emerged favoring the elimination of some=
=20
> gismu and thus keeping the total number constant, in the face of new=20
> proposals, if not shrinking.  One last group of new ones was approved,=20
> and the list was frozen.  Many years passed before any word was proposed=
=20
> with significant justification, thus suggesting that this decision was=20
> correct.  (If no one has really needed a word in 25 odd years of use, it=
=20
> is hard to argue that it is fundamental, even if it might be useful.)=20
>
> Place structures started with JCB's general pattern.  I attempted to=20
> find patterns, and then to make words of similar semantic domain=20
> consistent.  Thus all plant and animal gismu were to have a species=20
> place.  I eventually got things fairly systematic, though I made some=20
> mistakes.  At that point, pretty much no one besides me was looking that=
=20
> closely.=20
>
> I strongly avoided one-place predicates.=20
>
> But at one point, I realized I was going too far, ascribing to any=20
> possible tool a purpose, and to any object both material and form=20
> places.  I backed off from this somewhat.  I thus avoided >5 place=20
> predicates.  At about this point, the current concept of BAI started to=
=20
> emerge, and it was realized that a large number of places were=20
> superfluous.  I made one last pass, generally reducing many of the=20
> excess places I had added.=20
>
> Is there a changelog of modifications to gismu=20
> > definitions starting from the first edition of loglan?=20
>
> Not hardly.  I introduced the concept of configuration management in the=
=20
> 1988-1994 period, starting to document all changes once a chunk of the=20
> language was baselined.  Before it was baselined, documentation was=20
> rarely attempted, though there are some cases.  In only a few cases do=20
> we even have good copies of the evolving word lists - this was still a=20
> primarily paper and pencil project.=20
>
> > My particular interest here is with the recent discussion of a possible=
=20
> > new gismu meaning "qua". The corresponding word is of high frequency in=
=20
> > Mandarin but in European languages it is often confused with words=20
> > meaning {simsa}.=20
> > e.g.=20
> > "as" means both "like" and "qua".=20
> > Russian "=D0=BA=D0=B0=D0=BA" [kak] means both "like" and "qua".=20
>
> I have no comment on the merits of this, other than to merely observe=20
> that many of the world's languages seem to do fine without making a=20
> distinction.=20
>
> The gismu list is baselined.  New gismu are not being considered, and=20
> there is no plan to do so in the future, though this could be revisited=
=20
> AFTER the existing language is fully documented.=20
>
> > Were Mandarin predicates taken into consideration while constructing=20
> > gismu definitions?=20
>
> Not that I know of.  I did the Mandarin work for Lojban, and I don't=20
> know Mandarin.=20
>
> More importantly, almost no consideration of semantics was involved in=20
> gismu-making.  If the basic meaning was generally covered, that was good=
=20
> enough.  It was expected that the meanings and place structures would=20
> evolve with usage.  (But by 1997, the community was tired of my and=20
> other senior Lojbanists changing the language by fiat.  The community=20
> wanted the language to stop changing in that matter.  Completely.  I=20
> agreed with them.  We don't change the language by fiat anymore.  The=20
> only exception, adopted for byfy use, is that stuff which is so broken=20
> as to prevent good documentation of the status quo language, could be=20
> changed so as to allow that documentation.  (Since then, sentiment seems=
=20
> to have grown against "usage-based change" which is the other=20
> alternative, and one that cannot really be prevented.  People generally=
=20
> are biased against change in language.  They want books that are=20
> prescriptive and unchanging, whereas lexicographers strongly consider=20
> dictionaries by nature to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.)=20
>
>
>
> I did use some systematic techniques to try to be sure I was picking the=
=20
> correct root, and for a brief time, we had a native Mandarin speaker who=
=20
> looked over what I had done with approval. (A couple of Mandarin=20
> speakers since then have also said that the work I did was more than=20
> adequate, but they were generally comparing us to Esperanto and other=20
> Euroclone languages). I also used 3 different dictionaries in the case=20
> of Mandarin in order to be more certain, since Mandarin has such a high=
=20
> weight in Lojban word-making.  Still, there are flaws, and I think my=20
> choice for Lojbanization of Mandarin was especially bad, being based=20
> solely on the quasi-official Chinese description of the IPA=20
> pronunciation of Chinese particles, and the system I used for mapping=20
> IPA in other languages.  As a result, Mandarin inputs had too many "a"s=
=20
> representing schwa, and too many fricatives were mapped to s and c,=20
> leading to Lojban having a "she sells sea shells" quality that is hard=20
> for some speakers, including me, to speak the language quickly and=20
> accurately.=20
>
> But I don't know enough Mandarin grammar to have any clue what subjects=
=20
> and objects any given Mandarin word might require (if any)  I did enough=
=20
> comparative linguistics study to be reasonably confident that my=20
> approach was "good enough".=20
>
> (Arabic is the other language where my word-making rules were systematic=
=20
> but led to a relatively poor result.  And since Arabic has the lowest=20
> weight of the 6 source languages, this meant that Arabic influenced=20
> relative few words, and its inputs were less useful to Arabic speaking=20
> Lojbanists.=20
>
> JCB may have had some native speaker inputs in the early days, but my=20
> general observations on his choices for word-making suggest that they=20
> were even more limited and flawed than my efforts.  I know that we had=20
> much better dictionaries by 1987 than JCB had in 1955.=20
>
> lojbab=20
> --=20
> Bob LeChevalier    loj...@lojban.org <javascript:>    www.lojban.org=20
> President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.=20
>
>
>

--=20
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/lo=
jban/-/nz86kpRVGjUJ.
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.


------=_Part_734_24790519.1358175019119
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

doi lojbab mi ckire do .io lo ka ciksi so'a da<div><br></div><div>As usual =
this topic is turning into a rant. But that was predictable and unavoidable=
.</div><div><br><br>On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:40:28 PM UTC+4, lojbab wr=
ote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex=
;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la gleki wrote:
<br>&gt; Every Lojbanist understands that gismu denote predicates that are =
highly
<br>&gt; practical.
<br>&gt; e.g. {pilno} includes a goal as pilno3. Indeed, how can we imagine=
 using
<br>&gt; something without a goal?
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; My question is who collected those definitions?
<br>
<br>Me.
<br>
<br>&gt; Was it JCB?
<br>
<br>&nbsp;&gt; How was this gimste formed?
<br>
<br>JCB set the place structures for the TLI Loglan words. &nbsp;His genera=
l=20
<br>philosophy of doing so was set forth in his books Loglan 1 and Loglan 2=
,=20
<br>though he didn't always follow his own principles.
<br>
<br>I started with JCB's list, but greatly modified it, both adding and=20
<br>deleting words. &nbsp;As such, there are half-again as many gismu as th=
ere=20
<br>were in TLI Loglan of the time. &nbsp;In very few cases can I tell you =
for=20
<br>certain the specific reason I added certain words, though for the=20
<br>culture words I made an attempt to be systematic. &nbsp;A large chunk w=
as=20
<br>added in 1988 as a result of Athelstan doing a thorough analysis based=
=20
<br>on Roget's thesaurus, to make sure that we had good coverage of all=20
<br>semantic domains.
<br>
<br>During the period from about 1990-1994, I subjected all change proposal=
s=20
<br>to the LogFest attendees, representing the community, for approval. &nb=
sp;In=20
<br>the latter two years, a faction emerged favoring the elimination of som=
e=20
<br>gismu and thus keeping the total number constant, in the face of new=20
<br>proposals, if not shrinking. &nbsp;One last group of new ones was appro=
ved,=20
<br>and the list was frozen. &nbsp;Many years passed before any word was pr=
oposed=20
<br>with significant justification, thus suggesting that this decision was=
=20
<br>correct. &nbsp;(If no one has really needed a word in 25 odd years of u=
se, it=20
<br>is hard to argue that it is fundamental, even if it might be useful.)
<br>
<br>Place structures started with JCB's general pattern. &nbsp;I attempted =
to=20
<br>find patterns, and then to make words of similar semantic domain=20
<br>consistent. &nbsp;Thus all plant and animal gismu were to have a specie=
s=20
<br>place. &nbsp;I eventually got things fairly systematic, though I made s=
ome=20
<br>mistakes. &nbsp;At that point, pretty much no one besides me was lookin=
g that=20
<br>closely.
<br>
<br>I strongly avoided one-place predicates.
<br>
<br>But at one point, I realized I was going too far, ascribing to any=20
<br>possible tool a purpose, and to any object both material and form=20
<br>places. &nbsp;I backed off from this somewhat. &nbsp;I thus avoided &gt=
;5 place=20
<br>predicates. &nbsp;At about this point, the current concept of BAI start=
ed to=20
<br>emerge, and it was realized that a large number of places were=20
<br>superfluous. &nbsp;I made one last pass, generally reducing many of the=
=20
<br>excess places I had added.
<br>
<br>Is there a changelog of modifications to gismu
<br>&gt; definitions starting from the first edition of loglan?
<br>
<br>Not hardly. &nbsp;I introduced the concept of configuration management =
in the=20
<br>1988-1994 period, starting to document all changes once a chunk of the=
=20
<br>language was baselined. &nbsp;Before it was baselined, documentation wa=
s=20
<br>rarely attempted, though there are some cases. &nbsp;In only a few case=
s do=20
<br>we even have good copies of the evolving word lists - this was still a=
=20
<br>primarily paper and pencil project.
<br>
<br>&gt; My particular interest here is with the recent discussion of a pos=
sible
<br>&gt; new gismu meaning "qua". The corresponding word is of high frequen=
cy in
<br>&gt; Mandarin but in European languages it is often confused with words
<br>&gt; meaning {simsa}.
<br>&gt; e.g.
<br>&gt; "as" means both "like" and "qua".
<br>&gt; Russian "=D0=BA=D0=B0=D0=BA" [kak] means both "like" and "qua".
<br>
<br>I have no comment on the merits of this, other than to merely observe=
=20
<br>that many of the world's languages seem to do fine without making a=20
<br>distinction.
<br>
<br>The gismu list is baselined. &nbsp;New gismu are not being considered, =
and=20
<br>there is no plan to do so in the future, though this could be revisited=
=20
<br>AFTER the existing language is fully documented.
<br>
<br>&gt; Were Mandarin predicates taken into consideration while constructi=
ng
<br>&gt; gismu definitions?
<br>
<br>Not that I know of. &nbsp;I did the Mandarin work for Lojban, and I don=
't=20
<br>know Mandarin.
<br>
<br>More importantly, almost no consideration of semantics was involved in=
=20
<br>gismu-making. &nbsp;If the basic meaning was generally covered, that wa=
s good=20
<br>enough. &nbsp;It was expected that the meanings and place structures wo=
uld=20
<br>evolve with usage. &nbsp;(But by 1997, the community was tired of my an=
d=20
<br>other senior Lojbanists changing the language by fiat. &nbsp;The commun=
ity=20
<br>wanted the language to stop changing in that matter. &nbsp;Completely. =
&nbsp;I=20
<br>agreed with them. &nbsp;We don't change the language by fiat anymore. &=
nbsp;The=20
<br>only exception, adopted for byfy use, is that stuff which is so broken=
=20
<br>as to prevent good documentation of the status quo language, could be=
=20
<br>changed so as to allow that documentation. &nbsp;(Since then, sentiment=
 seems=20
<br>to have grown against "usage-based change" which is the other=20
<br>alternative, and one that cannot really be prevented. &nbsp;People gene=
rally=20
<br>are biased against change in language. &nbsp;They want books that are=
=20
<br>prescriptive and unchanging, whereas lexicographers strongly consider=
=20
<br>dictionaries by nature to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.)
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>I did use some systematic techniques to try to be sure I was picking th=
e=20
<br>correct root, and for a brief time, we had a native Mandarin speaker wh=
o=20
<br>looked over what I had done with approval. (A couple of Mandarin=20
<br>speakers since then have also said that the work I did was more than=20
<br>adequate, but they were generally comparing us to Esperanto and other=
=20
<br>Euroclone languages). I also used 3 different dictionaries in the case=
=20
<br>of Mandarin in order to be more certain, since Mandarin has such a high=
=20
<br>weight in Lojban word-making. &nbsp;Still, there are flaws, and I think=
 my=20
<br>choice for Lojbanization of Mandarin was especially bad, being based=20
<br>solely on the quasi-official Chinese description of the IPA=20
<br>pronunciation of Chinese particles, and the system I used for mapping=
=20
<br>IPA in other languages. &nbsp;As a result, Mandarin inputs had too many=
 "a"s=20
<br>representing schwa, and too many fricatives were mapped to s and c,=20
<br>leading to Lojban having a "she sells sea shells" quality that is hard=
=20
<br>for some speakers, including me, to speak the language quickly and=20
<br>accurately.
<br>
<br>But I don't know enough Mandarin grammar to have any clue what subjects=
=20
<br>and objects any given Mandarin word might require (if any) &nbsp;I did =
enough=20
<br>comparative linguistics study to be reasonably confident that my=20
<br>approach was "good enough".
<br>
<br>(Arabic is the other language where my word-making rules were systemati=
c=20
<br>but led to a relatively poor result. &nbsp;And since Arabic has the low=
est=20
<br>weight of the 6 source languages, this meant that Arabic influenced=20
<br>relative few words, and its inputs were less useful to Arabic speaking=
=20
<br>Lojbanists.
<br>
<br>JCB may have had some native speaker inputs in the early days, but my=
=20
<br>general observations on his choices for word-making suggest that they=
=20
<br>were even more limited and flawed than my efforts. &nbsp;I know that we=
 had=20
<br>much better dictionaries by 1987 than JCB had in 1955.
<br>
<br>lojbab
<br>--=20
<br>Bob LeChevalier &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" =
gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"c5cLE0UO-IEJ">loj...@lojban.org</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;<=
a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org" target=3D"_blank">www.lojban.org</a>
<br>President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
<br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/nz86kpRVGjUJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/nz=
86kpRVGjUJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />


------=_Part_734_24790519.1358175019119--