On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Robert LeCheval= ier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

Ian Johnson wrote:

=A0 =A0 =A0 Until we know more about how the brain does memory, it seems =A0 =A0 presumptuous to claim that these are different "concepts"= as opposed
=A0 =A0 to different memories.

As gleki has pointed out, there is significant evidence that the two
actually are different. Also, although it is a small sample, at the time of coming up with this idea several of us (tsani, gleki, and I, possibly others) all realized that our ways of interacting with these types of
memories were significantly different, and that this seemed to be
responsible for several experiences with memory. For example, I remarked that I remember certain concepts in mathematics in a way more similar to how I remember experiences than to how I remember other facts, and that
these memories are inevitably more permanent and vivid than their
counterparts. gleki remarked that he had a brief epiphany of the
importance of this concept before quickly losing it to the lack of a
word for it in his native language.

That the experience of having these kinds of memories is different does not= mean that the concept is fundamentally different from any other kind of me= mory. =A0The place structure is essentially the same; you just fill in a di= fferent kind of value.

=A0 =A0 morji is NOT restricted to du'u. =A0The parenthetical use in th= e gismu
=A0 =A0 list is NOT a restriction (and indeed there aren't really ANY =A0 =A0 restrictions so long as it is grammatical - the semantics of lojban=
=A0 =A0 has not been formally defined).

You may say that,

Because it is true.

but this type analysis is part of the way that the
language, as I've seen it in the last few years, has evolved.

There have been people who have tried to analyze semantic issues. =A0But th= eir analysis is not part of the language definition. =A0It is at best descr= iptive and not prescriptive.

This is by design intent, and will persist until/unless some authority like= byfy changes it. =A0And it isn't on byfy's agenda to even consider= such issues yet, and probably for a long time to come. =A0A lot of more im= portant stuff comes first and hasn't gotten done.

Evolved restriction is not new to natlangs, why should it be new to conlang= s?

I have no idea whether it is found in other conlangs. =A0It is not part of = Lojban.

=A0 =A0 One can claim, I think somewhat arbitrarily), that memorizing a
=A0 =A0 quote is a different sort of memory than a fact or an episode. =A0I= f
=A0 =A0 so, one might make lujvo based on morji to distinguish the
=A0 =A0 presumably different memory types of facts, quotes, and episodes, =A0 =A0 and define the place structure of the lujvo specific to your more =A0 =A0 restricted meaning.

=A0 =A0 (I think I should note that such specialized and restricted-meaning=
=A0 =A0 lujvo are a type that is not necessarily achievable using jvajvo =A0 =A0 rules, because we didn't really build the tools for
=A0 =A0 semantic-rules-based lujvo-making into the language - the concept o= f
=A0 =A0 having rules to determine place structures was an afterthought
=A0 =A0 regularization devised by Nick Nicolas as a result of his analysis<= br> =A0 =A0 of patterns of how people actually were making lujvo).

It's been stated already that the problem with going about this way is<= br> that the lujvo that you would want to use for this concept have useful
jvajvo meanings which are distinct from this concept.

jvajvo is also not a mandatory rule. =A0And that a jvajvo exists does not n= ecessarily give that meaning priority over a new and more useful meaning.
In general, shorter words are the ones that are more frequent, by Zipf'= s laws. =A0Almost no lujvo exist that are so frequent as to demand a short = form. There simply isn't a large enough corpus to measure such usage.
But in any case, there are an essentially infinite number of possible lujvo= .

And there are exactly 1357 gismu, with no more expected to be added for the= indefinite future, because there is no defined procedure to even consider = same, and the list is formally baselined. =A0We would use experimental Type= IV rafsi-able fu'ivla before coining new gismu.

I count 1342. Where are these other 15?
=A0

"Remembering
something about an experience" and "remembering an experience&quo= t; are both
useful ideas which should have separate terms.

To me
The first is x1 morji ledu'u [] li'i []
The second is x1 morji li'i [] zo'e

And if I really needed a lujvo for the latter, I would coin frimo'i. An= d if some other meaning already exists for that lujvo, I would change the l= esser used one by adding some other term.

But in any event, I don't sweat whether there is another word in jbovla= ste (and in fact I never use it). =A0I would coin the word I wanted, and if= f it caused confusion with some other meaning, only then would I actually d= ebate the question. =A0It hasn't yet happened (though I admit I am not = a heavy user of the language, and don't interact much online with other= s in Lojban).

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@goo= glegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/grou= p/lojban?hl=3Den.