Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <51A4A920.3090104@gmx.de>
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51A379EF.3020803@gmx.de>
	<CAHxnAm+HZGvy=Ck9nvogsR_uHL=+BYPho6vDKe8WGp-H4xKmEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51A38E6B.7080107@gmx.de>
	<CAPAJj9Jidw7LiYMfmZQkzHxFQ9Z5W_P3UPrVUSb8NCykcHu_JQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51A4A920.3090104@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:19:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9LqL9+-biactB=QQX2vhGrKg218G6JPSjxdg7VRtQna_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e8b8a10a6a04ddd98dde
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a11c2e8b8a10a6a04ddd98dde
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 28 May 2013 13:54, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> la .tijlan. cu cusku di'e
>> lo mlatu ratcu
>> a rat which is related to a cat (e.g. caught or eaten by a cat)
>>
>> la solvor betsemes
>> Betsemes who is related to Solvor (e.g. born to or raised by Solvor)
>
> This brings up a point that has to be laid out clearly. Is a string of
cmevla to be considered a single name, or is each cmevla to be seen
seperately? Currently, {la .solvor.betsemes.} is just a single name,
without any real structure. The Merge must decide whether to keep CMEVLA
strings atomic as a whole (Option 1) or to split them apart just like
normal tanru (Option 2).

As far as la zasni gerna is concerned, a single cmevla string is a
tanru-unit:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/zasni+gerna
Then multiple adjoining cmevla strings would become a tanru. In fact, if
the Merge means that a single brivla or cmevla can equally be a selbri, it
wouldn't make sense to keep a group of only the latter type from forming a
tanru.


> Option 2 has the effect that some multi-cmevla would undergo a slight
change in meaning, e.g. imagine {la .klaus.peter.} whose name consists of
two equal parts, neither of which can be considered to modify the other. Or
imagine someone whose name contains a glottal stop. The effect that Option
2 would have on such names *might* be negligible, I'm not sure. {la
.klaus.peter.} would be a tanru name, so it means a "klaus" type of "peter".
>
> In any case, we could manipulate such names freely. We can {.klaus. bo
.peter.} or {.peter. co .klaus.} because once split, the above problem
doesn't exist anymore (it's effectively a case of {BRIVLA bo/co BRIVLA}),
though it still makes a difference for the meaning of the unsplit cmevla
string. It becomes especially apparent once you add a third component that
is supposed to modify the entire cmevla string:
>
> lo xekri .ford.taurus.
>
> Option 1 has it that {melbi} modifies {.ford.taurus.}
> Option 2 would interpret it as {(melbi .ford.) .taurus.}
>
> It can't be both, so a decision has to be made.

From my perspective, if koha's family name is "klaus", that's a string not
specific to koha but shared by koha & certain family members. It's a
generic name, and quite compatible with the semantics of seltau.

If a specific name consists of multiple strings, like "Jean-Claude", and if
we didn't want to concatenate them into one string, we could make a tertau
that's a pair of parallel selbri joined by a connective: {.jan. JOI
.klod.}. Likewise, if a generic/family name has multiple parts, such as
"Solvor Camgusmis" in the earlier example, we could again parallelize them
-- {.solvor. JOI .camgusmis} -- rather than splitting them into the
hierarchy of "first surname" and "second surname".

Or, one could invoke CLL 5:15:
"The tanru may refer to things which are correctly specified by both tanru
components."


>> Or perhaps we could radically change the default tanru order to
>> head-initial, which would be consistent with the right-branching NOI,
>> GOI, ME, NU, etc:
>
>
> Please no. The entire language is generally left-branching, apart from
{bo}. Let's not revert something so fundamental.
>
> In what way are ME or NU right-branching? To me, the term "branching" or
"grouping" in this context means the grouping of identical (or similar)
items in succession, for instance:
>
> broda brode brodi -> (broda brode) brodi
> X .e Y .a Z       -> (X .e Y) .a Z
>
> Some constructs are head-initial, but those have two different components
interacting instead, e.g. {KOhA NOI}. I think we need to dinstinguish
between these different situations of branching.

Branching is the orientation of modifiers rather than the grouping of
identical/similar items in succession. A construct branches into a
particular direction if that's where the modification expands into, i.e.
where further information regarding the head item can be found. The
construct "preposition + noun" or "tag + sumti" is right-branching, because
"noun/sumti" adds information to "preposition/tag" in a dependent manner.
And these aren't identical/similar items in succession. Accordingly, "noun
+ post-position" is left-branching. So is {broda brode brodi}: extra
information is piled up toward the left. Below is a useful article on this:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/Chapter%204.%28H05%29.pdf

From the perspective of branching,

ME + sumti
NU + sentence
NOI + sentence
...

are analogous to

tag + sumti

or rather to

selbri + sumti.

ME/NU/NOI/... share the same relative position as selbri, as heads,
followed by modifiers: modification expands rightward. Like in English
"something is an instance of a cat" (ME), "the cat which ate the rat"
(NOI), "that the cat ate the rat" (NU)... Linguists consider these
right-branching. And, just like nouns can be a head in relation to a
relative clause in natlangs, KOhA (or sumti in general) can be followed by
NOI as a modifier, which is again right-branching.

On the other hand, in {broda brode brodi}, modifiers are added leftward:
it's left-branching. While some languages are more consistently left- or
right-branching, some are less so, which includes English and Lojban. The
article explains that "very good" is an exception to the usual English word
order of head+modifier because "very", an adverb, is not freely expandable
like "which" or "as". However, Lojban seltau is quite expandable - it
accepts sumti or tag through {be}:

broda [ be ko'a pe ko'e poi brodo be'o ] brode [ be do'e bei fi'o brodu
ko'i be'o ] brodi

This is a left-branching construct containing two right-branching
constructs.


> I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of symmetry. The whole point of
The Merge is to *increase* symmetry, is it not?

Assuming you are talking about tanru:
Symmetric tanru can be made with JOI/JA. If the seltau-tertau relationship
was symmetric by default, we would have to use {ke} etc. for asymmetry. The
question is which scheme is more efficient. Are there more symmetric tanru
than asymmetric tanru?

Also:
Suppose someone is named "Panz Lanz". "Panz" is the given name, "Lanz" the
family name. If we lojbanized and treated each as symmetric parts of the
name -- i.e. both {panz} and {lanz} refer specifically to the individual
offspring --, we might still want a generic cmevla for different members of
the Lanz family. We could reasonably use {lanz} for that. Then what reason
would there be to keep {lanz} & {panz} symmetric rather than letting {lanz}
modify {panz} as per the usual handling of tanru?

Having family names as independent cmevla rather than an inalienable part
of a specific name, can be productive, as in the "Koch brothers", {kok
bruna}, "Koch-type-of brothers". "David Koch" could then be {kok deivid},
"Koch-type-of David". I think it would make sense if {kok} in the two tanru
referred generically to the same family rather than brothers on one hand
and an individual on the other hand, at least to the extent that it *is* a
family name. In the "Mario brothers" and the "Doobie Brothers", "Mario" and
"Doobie" aren't a family name, but they can still be translated as a seltau
modifying {bruna}.


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.


--001a11c2e8b8a10a6a04ddd98dde
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On 28 May 2013 13:54, selpa&#39;i &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:seladwa@gmx.de">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; la .tijlan=
. cu cusku di&#39;e<br>&gt;&gt; lo mlatu ratcu<br>&gt;&gt; a rat which is r=
elated to a cat (e.g. caught or eaten by a cat)<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; la solvor betsemes<br>&gt;&gt; Betsemes who is related=
 to Solvor (e.g. born to or raised by Solvor)<br>&gt;<br>&gt; This brings u=
p a point that has to be laid out clearly. Is a string of cmevla to be cons=
idered a single name, or is each cmevla to be seen seperately? Currently, {=
la .solvor.betsemes.} is just a single name, without any real structure. Th=
e Merge must decide whether to keep CMEVLA strings atomic as a whole (Optio=
n 1) or to split them apart just like normal tanru (Option 2).<br>
<br></div><div>As far as la zasni gerna is concerned, a single cmevla strin=
g is a tanru-unit:<br><a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/zasni+gerna">ht=
tp://www.lojban.org/tiki/zasni+gerna</a><br></div><div>Then multiple adjoin=
ing cmevla strings would become a tanru. In fact, if the Merge means that a=
 single brivla or cmevla can equally be a selbri, it wouldn&#39;t make sens=
e to keep a group of only the latter type from forming a tanru.<br>
<br></div><div><br>&gt; Option 2 has the effect that some multi-cmevla woul=
d undergo a slight change in meaning, e.g. imagine {la .klaus.peter.} whose=
 name consists of two equal parts, neither of which can be considered to mo=
dify the other. Or imagine someone whose name contains a glottal stop. The =
effect that Option 2 would have on such names *might* be negligible, I&#39;=
m not sure. {la .klaus.peter.} would be a tanru name, so it means a &quot;k=
laus&quot; type of &quot;peter&quot;.<br>
&gt;</div><div>&gt; In any case, we could manipulate such names freely. We =
can {.klaus. bo .peter.} or {.peter. co .klaus.} because once split, the ab=
ove problem doesn&#39;t exist anymore (it&#39;s effectively a case of {BRIV=
LA bo/co BRIVLA}), though it still makes a difference for the meaning of th=
e unsplit cmevla string. It becomes especially apparent once you add a thir=
d component that is supposed to modify the entire cmevla string:<br>
&gt;<br>&gt; lo xekri .ford.taurus.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Option 1 has it that {m=
elbi} modifies {.ford.taurus.}<br>&gt; Option 2 would interpret it as {(mel=
bi .ford.) .taurus.}<br>&gt;<br>&gt; It can&#39;t be both, so a decision ha=
s to be made.<br>
<br></div><div>From my perspective, if koha&#39;s family name is &quot;klau=
s&quot;, that&#39;s a string not specific to koha but shared by koha &amp; =
certain family members. It&#39;s a generic name, and quite compatible with =
the semantics of seltau.<br>
<br></div><div>If a specific name consists of multiple strings, like &quot;=
Jean-Claude&quot;, and if we didn&#39;t want to concatenate them into one s=
tring, we could make a tertau that&#39;s a pair of parallel selbri joined b=
y a connective: {.jan. JOI .klod.}. Likewise, if a generic/family name has =
multiple parts, such as &quot;Solvor Camgusmis&quot; in the earlier example=
, we could again parallelize them -- {.solvor. JOI .camgusmis} -- rather th=
an splitting them into the hierarchy of &quot;first surname&quot; and &quot=
;second surname&quot;.<br>
</div><div><br>Or, one could invoke CLL 5:15:<br>&quot;The tanru may refer =
to things which are correctly specified
    by both tanru components.&quot;<br><br><br>&gt;&gt; Or perhaps we could=
 radically change the default tanru order to<br>&gt;&gt; head-initial, whic=
h would be consistent with the right-branching NOI,<br>&gt;&gt; GOI, ME, NU=
, etc:<br>
&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Please no. The entire language is generally left-branc=
hing, apart from {bo}. Let&#39;s not revert something so fundamental.<br>&g=
t;<br>&gt; In what way are ME or NU right-branching? To me, the term &quot;=
branching&quot; or &quot;grouping&quot; in this context means the grouping =
of identical (or similar) items in succession, for instance:<br>
&gt;<br>&gt; broda brode brodi -&gt; (broda brode) brodi<br>&gt; X .e Y .a =
Z =A0 =A0 =A0 -&gt; (X .e Y) .a Z<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Some constructs are head-=
initial, but those have two=20
different components interacting instead, e.g. {KOhA NOI}. I think we=20
need to dinstinguish between these different situations of branching.<br><b=
r></div><div>Branching is the orientation of modifiers rather than the grou=
ping of identical/similar items in succession. A construct branches into a =
particular direction if that&#39;s where the modification expands into, i.e=
. where further information regarding the head item can be found. The const=
ruct &quot;preposition + noun&quot; or &quot;tag + sumti&quot; is right-bra=
nching, because &quot;noun/sumti&quot; adds information to &quot;prepositio=
n/tag&quot; in a dependent manner. And these aren&#39;t identical/similar i=
tems in succession. Accordingly, &quot;noun + post-position&quot; is left-b=
ranching. So is {broda brode brodi}: extra information is piled up toward t=
he left. Below is a useful article on this:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestof=
f/linguistics/Chapter%204.%28H05%29.pdf">http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf=
/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/Chapter%204.%28H05%29.pdf</a><b=
r>
</div><div><br></div><div>From the perspective of branching,<br><br>ME + su=
mti<br>NU + sentence<br>NOI + sentence<br>...<br><br>are analogous to<br><b=
r>tag + sumti<br><br>or rather to<br><br>selbri + sumti.<br><br></div><div>
ME/NU/NOI/... share the same relative position as selbri, as heads, followe=
d by modifiers: modification expands rightward. Like in English &quot;somet=
hing is an instance of a cat&quot; (ME), &quot;the cat which ate the rat&qu=
ot; (NOI), &quot;that the cat ate the rat&quot; (NU)... Linguists consider =
these right-branching. And, just like nouns can be a head in relation to a =
relative clause in natlangs, KOhA (or sumti in general) can be followed by =
NOI as a modifier, which is again right-branching.<br>
<br></div><div>On the other hand, in {broda brode brodi}, modifiers are add=
ed leftward: it&#39;s left-branching. While some languages are more consist=
ently left- or right-branching, some are less so, which includes English an=
d Lojban. The article explains that &quot;very good&quot; is an exception t=
o the usual English word order of head+modifier because &quot;very&quot;, a=
n adverb, is not freely expandable like &quot;which&quot; or &quot;as&quot;=
. However, Lojban seltau is quite expandable - it accepts sumti or tag thro=
ugh {be}:<br>
<br></div><div>broda [ be ko&#39;a pe ko&#39;e poi brodo be&#39;o ] brode [=
 be do&#39;e bei fi&#39;o brodu ko&#39;i be&#39;o ] brodi<br><br></div><div=
>This is a left-branching construct containing two right-branching construc=
ts.<br>
</div><div><br><br></div><div>&gt; I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a good idea t=
o get rid of symmetry. The whole point of The Merge is to *increase* symmet=
ry, is it not?<br><br></div><div>Assuming you are talking about tanru:<br>
Symmetric tanru can be made with JOI/JA. If the seltau-tertau relationship =
was symmetric by default, we would have to use {ke} etc. for asymmetry. The=
 question is which scheme is more efficient. Are there more symmetric tanru=
 than asymmetric tanru?<br>
<br></div><div>Also:<br></div><div>Suppose someone is named &quot;Panz Lanz=
&quot;. &quot;Panz&quot; is the given name, &quot;Lanz&quot; the family nam=
e. If we lojbanized and treated each as symmetric parts of the name -- i.e.=
 both {panz} and {lanz} refer specifically to the individual offspring --, =
we might still want a generic cmevla for different members of the Lanz fami=
ly. We could reasonably use {lanz} for that. Then what reason would there b=
e to keep {lanz} &amp; {panz} symmetric rather than letting {lanz} modify {=
panz} as per the usual handling of tanru?<br>
<br></div><div>Having family names as independent cmevla rather than an ina=
lienable part of a specific name, can be productive, as in the &quot;Koch b=
rothers&quot;, {kok bruna}, &quot;Koch-type-of brothers&quot;. &quot;David =
Koch&quot; could then be {kok deivid}, &quot;Koch-type-of David&quot;. I th=
ink it would make sense if {kok} in the two tanru referred generically to t=
he same family rather than brothers on one hand and an individual on the ot=
her hand, at least to the extent that it *is* a family name. In the &quot;M=
ario brothers&quot; and the &quot;Doobie Brothers&quot;, &quot;Mario&quot; =
and &quot;Doobie&quot; aren&#39;t a family name, but they can still be tran=
slated as a seltau modifying {bruna}.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o<br></div></div>

<p></p>

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

--001a11c2e8b8a10a6a04ddd98dde--