Received: from mail-ve0-f191.google.com ([209.85.128.191]:49477) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UKtyh-0005Tc-0U; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:17:46 -0700 Received: by mail-ve0-f191.google.com with SMTP id jw11sf1164618veb.8 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:17:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Lj+IG+TrZa0aII3JJiE/wj4VJ63Xd7hQuXAq8/KA7sw=; b=DDQ9CEKcTM+Zdubgj+rByhKId6HDEm5HEjzM/4A4da1yxgdpBbmbzAooFuJsuscW16 Y5Kwm6Al0w1B+AfB2AG5klGKZX6qoxj8bcTO9kaXqe3GoXWYcbuh2FSt0q2BzMYK1HIh 0Hd/bDCWPpBzRrvNSxM9VjNmM7zq8QKnh5KxSq+4PsJvjANWla3IIvlvxSY19a/cQmmk mEwu56E45ra3gihUJW27sd+tNHkAj69E3kbM7tiDBaOFlk/Q34mImkUlwHLWn3LQRuir 8t0cI9DyaaKkzx/BwX9XqyqrbevDCGbbxT/Fqmb4lmX2FiYmFmv+BUUYbww1PTtm9MG+ EnVw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Lj+IG+TrZa0aII3JJiE/wj4VJ63Xd7hQuXAq8/KA7sw=; b=eaXn0oVJyGR2UfQv/bcuKTWExwyPTIgz8V1hBllJo8HKVfs0JvmdJCQuJ57OvrgKQ3 CtQVIPEtXp/Jievty9AcOERLml17NRLcMxVWg+RLvjam2kZcLpmvA6hP5I9Idi9BtjaO MTSGqG3Kgo5wtRZgHi+rOSQO+tpxAM+auIxUyU7fgrEKZ5RNizNGOt+ZhlsvSkV8Ey8h KFta7vXbB2DIoH/pAf20vbmLkLvLKuY+/oE5L8plPU9WB2UfrWoQU9UY2gSndeIDjMUA D9D4XVHQjSpu2OV3V2RW5OxSP8RPkEQpf6QcuR6SCmP2VemPL0KO8Ok039OUjziVOuYJ ZEZA== X-Received: by 10.49.133.135 with SMTP id pc7mr601543qeb.29.1364404648041; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:17:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.105.229 with SMTP id gp5ls3012220qeb.22.gmail; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:17:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.85.165 with SMTP id i5mr1547007qez.28.1364404647536; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:17:26 -0700 (PDT) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <9cb76aa0-a82f-490f-befe-faeb69060888@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] A Discussion of the Lojban System of Place Structure MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_315_16159602.1364404646673" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_315_16159602.1364404646673 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:52:52 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote: > > Something that bothers me about your paper, which as it stands is quite > good, is that you only deal with an extremely small portion of Lojban. You > don't touch at all on lujvo, which are what place structures are really > for. In the case of purely compositional lujvo, e.g. kansi'u, the place > structure lets you infer without any ambiguity or metaphor what the > resulting place structure of the lujvo will be, based solely on the > knowledge of the component gismu. As for memorizing the place structures of > component gismu, one must simply realize that Lojban already *has* a case > system. Simply put, rather than having named cases, we have numbered cases, > and in *many* cases, there is a lot of parallelism between gismu of the > same semantic category. > > Consider {morji}, {djuno}, {smadi}, {sruma}, {jijnu}, {jimpe}, {senpi}, > {birti}, {krici}, and {jinvi}. > morji = x1 remembers fact x2 about x3 > djuno = x1 knows fact x2 about x3 by epistemology x4 > smadi = x1 guesses x2 about x3 > jijnu = x1 intuits x2 about x3 > jimpe = x1 understands fact x2 about x3 > senpi = x1 doubts that x2 is true > birti = x1 is sure that x2 is true > krici = x1 believes that x2 is true about x3 > jinvi = x1 opines that x2 is true about x3 on grounds x4 > > In the "knowledge" family, which above isn't even complete, one > immediately notices the parallelism. This family along with the "family" > family (family-relation = x1 is the of x2 by > bond/tie x3; e.g. bersa) and the foods and animals family (food/animal = x1 > is a of type/species/etc. x2) make up an extremely large > portion of the gismu list. > > Now, I concede that even within a family, there are some exceptions, such > as birti and senpi, which don't have an "about" place at all, or jinvi and > djuno which are the only ones with an x4. Even in the food and animals > family, there are some notable oddballs such as lanme ( = x1 is a sheep of > species x2 of flock x3). However there being a difference in the number of > places *usually* isn't that much of a big deal. If someone accidentally > fills in an x3 of birti, any decent listener will understand what is meant, > due to the overarching systematic nature of the family to which it belongs. > On the other hand, when lujvo are made (according to the rules, that is) > oddball places may unfortunately need to be included, which can lead to > unexpected place structures in the resulting lujvo. > > e.g. jboxlajivdunsi'u = x1 are equal in that they opine that lojban is bad > for x2 by standard x3 on grounds of belief x4. > > If one forgets that xlali has a standard place in the x3, then if they try > to fill in the belief place of jinvi, things can get messy. > > Still, I don't know how your proposed case system would cooperate with > lujvo (or would it simply drop lujvo from the language?) So I can't say > that the status quo is any better or worse. > > Finally, semantic families don't always work. {cpedu}, {minde}, and > {picki} are in the same family, I'd say, but have place structures > divergent in rather irritating ways. > > cpedu = x1 requests x2 of x3 in manner x4 > minde = x1 orders x2 to x3 > picki = x1 begs x2 to x3 > > However, if one takes into account the emphasis difference, (when ordering > something to happen, the person whom is ordered is more important, and > therefore moves closer to the front,) then it becomes easier to remember. > Also, cpedu2 being the action requested is more useful for translating "He > asked for a glass of water." Indeed, in that case, the person of whom that > action (giving a glass of water) is far less important (it could be anyone, > so in truth, we're just dropping the place entirely by context). > > That being said, I strongly push towards efforts to regularize the gismu > list in order to make the numeric case system more self-consistent. One of > Lojban's major issues is a lack of self-consistency, as pointed out by > gleki in his thread about "four different vocabularies." > I started that thread with a completely different complaint, namely ....4 different but parallel sets of words/morphemes for memorising. > However, the existence of this multiple vocabularies is not a problem > intrinsic to the nature of Lojban, and is thus a whole other can of worms > when contrasted with the issues with place structure. > > In sum, I believe that trashing place structure is overall a bad idea. > Not at all. It *is* possible to create a language where every gismu will have not more than two places. May be Lojban being spoken by more people will try to change into such thing. Whether such dialect of Lojban will be more easy to learn or not is another question. Place structure is central to Lojban's ideology, in my opinion, and > removing it from Lojban would be like taking the Lojban out of Lojban. > mi zmadu do lo ni barda (I exceed you in property of being big) => mi poi zilkarbi do cu barda (I compared to you is big). This is how the third place might be removed by those who hate it. > Named case systems are used in other conlangs, and if those are more > pleasant to you, then perhaps those you should try those out, too. > Even not touching the previous example nobody can remove metaphors from our speech. If Daniel wants to try those in Lojban why stop 'em? Still, Lojban remains extremely interesting. It was not made to be easy, > and complaints that its cornerstones are complicated are of little weight. > As you learn more, you will see that there is a lot of regularity, and that > this language still remains immensely more simple than a multitude of > others. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ------=_Part_315_16159602.1364404646673 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:52:52 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
Something that bothers me about y= our paper, which as it stands is quite good, is that you only deal with an = extremely small portion of Lojban. You don't touch at all on lujvo, which a= re what place structures are really for. In the case of purely compositiona= l lujvo, e.g. kansi'u, the place structure lets you infer without any ambig= uity or metaphor what the resulting place structure of the lujvo will be, b= ased solely on the knowledge of the component gismu. As for memorizing the = place structures of component gismu, one must simply realize that Lojban al= ready *has* a case system. Simply put, rather than having named cases, we h= ave numbered cases, and in many cases, there is a lot of parall= elism between gismu of the same semantic category. 

Consider {morji}, {djuno}, {smadi}, {sruma}, {jijnu}, {= jimpe}, {senpi}, {birti}, {krici}, and {jinvi}.
morji =3D x1 reme= mbers fact x2 about x3
djuno =3D x1 knows fact x2 about x3 by epi= stemology x4
smadi =3D x1 guesses x2 about x3
jijnu =3D x1 intuits x2 abo= ut x3
jimpe =3D x1 understands fact x2 about x3
senpi = =3D x1 doubts that x2 is true
birti =3D x1 is sure that x2 is tru= e
krici =3D x1 believes that x2 is true about x3
jinvi =3D x1 = opines that x2 is true about x3 on grounds x4

In t= he "knowledge" family, which above isn't even complete, one immediately not= ices the parallelism. This family along with the "family" family (family-re= lation =3D x1 is the <type of relationship> of x2 by bond/tie x3; e.g= . bersa) and the foods and animals family (food/animal =3D x1 is a <food= /animal> of type/species/etc. x2) make up an extremely large portion of = the gismu list.

Now, I concede that even within a family, there are som= e exceptions, such as birti and senpi, which don't have an "about" place at= all, or jinvi and djuno which are the only ones with an x4. Even in the fo= od and animals family, there are some notable oddballs such as lanme ( =3D = x1 is a sheep of species x2 of flock x3). However there being a difference = in the number of places *usually* isn't that much of a big deal. If someone= accidentally fills in an x3 of birti, any decent listener will understand = what is meant, due to the overarching systematic nature of the family to wh= ich it belongs. On the other hand, when lujvo are made (according to the ru= les, that is) oddball places may unfortunately need to be included, which c= an lead to unexpected place structures in the resulting lujvo.

e.g. jboxlajivdunsi'u =3D x1 are equal in that they opi= ne that lojban is bad for x2 by standard x3 on grounds of belief x4.
<= div>
If one forgets that xlali has a standard place in the x3= , then if they try to fill in the belief place of jinvi, things can get mes= sy.

Still, I don't know how your proposed case system would= cooperate with lujvo (or would it simply drop lujvo from the language?) So= I can't say that the status quo is any better or worse.

Finally, semantic families don't always work. {cpedu}, {mind= e}, and {picki} are in the same family, I'd say, but have place structures = divergent in rather irritating ways.

cpedu =3D x1 requests x2 of x3 in manner x4
minde =3D x1 orders x2 to x3
picki =3D x1 begs x2 to x3

However, if one takes into account the emphasis differ= ence, (when ordering something to happen, the person whom is ordered is mor= e important, and therefore moves closer to the front,) then it becomes easi= er to remember. Also, cpedu2 being the action requested is more useful for = translating "He asked for a glass of water." Indeed, in that case, the pers= on of whom that action (giving a glass of water) is far less important (it = could be anyone, so in truth, we're just dropping the place entirely by con= text).

That being said, I strongly push towards efforts to reg= ularize the gismu list in order to make the numeric case system more self-c= onsistent. One of Lojban's major issues is a lack of self-consistency, as p= ointed out by gleki in his thread about "four different vocabularies."

I started that thread with a completely d= ifferent complaint, namely ....4 different but parallel sets of words/morph= emes for memorising.
 
However, the existence of this multiple vocabularies is = not a problem intrinsic to the nature of Lojban, and is thus a whole other = can of worms when contrasted with the issues with place structure.

In sum, I believe that trashing place structure is over= all a bad idea.

Not at all. It *is* p= ossible to create a language where every gismu will have not more than two = places. May be Lojban being spoken by more people will try to change into s= uch thing. Whether such dialect of Lojban will be more easy to learn or not= is another question.


Place structure is central to Lojban's id= eology, in my opinion, and removing it from Lojban would be like taking the= Lojban out of Lojban.

mi zmadu do lo= ni barda (I exceed you in property of being big) =3D> mi poi zilkarbi d= o cu barda (I compared to you is big).
This is how the third plac= e might be removed by those who hate it.

 
Named case systems ar= e used in other conlangs, and if those are more pleasant to you, then perha= ps those you should try those out, too.

Even not touching the previous example nobody can remove metaphors from = our speech. If Daniel wants to try those in Lojban why stop  'em? = ;


Still, Lojban remains extremely interesting. It was not made t= o be easy, and complaints that its cornerstones are complicated are of litt= le weight. As you learn more, you will see that there is a lot of regularit= y, and that this language still remains immensely more simple than a multit= ude of others.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
------=_Part_315_16159602.1364404646673--