Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <27282b11-5211-4e14-a97d-840ce27219ba@googlegroups.com>
References: <7bb6cb21-7b04-4e93-984e-e8ce89fef8aa@googlegroups.com>
	<27282b11-5211-4e14-a97d-840ce27219ba@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 11:34:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPAJj9+=HDVd8=mkkyDH+qt6TarOnjQNm07MJyhO24z07ctx4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Semantic categorisation of gismu
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=047d7b342cc295a9ec04de29630f
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7b342cc295a9ec04de29630f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

ki'e la gleki

I would be interested to see how different brivla are interrelated in terms
of their thematic relations. For example:

porpi
spisa
daspo

{porpi} and {spisa} have the same arguments (the whole and the part) in
reverse. They are also a dynamic/static counterpart to each other:
something dynamically *becomes* pieces, and something statically *is* a
piece. With {daspo}, an agent comes into the picture, causing something to
become other than its original self (to lose its original state), but
without specifying that resultant entity (whether spisa1, spofu1, or
something else).

Many brivla don't have a static/dynamic counterpart. {morsi} is static
(something is dead) rather than dynamic (something dies).

I like the notation used in the monograph below:
http://rickm.net16.net/lexical_semantics.html
It may be useful in the semantic analysis of brivla:

porpi   P/F-d
spisa   F/P-s
daspo   A/P-d

morsi   P-s
mrobi'o   P-d
catra   A/P/F-d

viska   P/F-s
catlu   AP/F-s

Both viska1 and catlu1 are a patient to the x2, but catlu1 is also an agent
to itself, keeping itself in the state of seeing something (it's an
agent-patient). (And, insofar as a "condition" place is optional for
{catlu}, viska3 may be considered equally extraneous and be left out of the
notation.)

According to your list, {viska} and {tirna} belong to the same "Psycho:
Sensation/observation" class, as they should, but {tirna} doesn't have an
AP/F-s counterpart like {viska} does. This kind of analysis can cue us to
find lexical partiality and redundancy.


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.


--047d7b342cc295a9ec04de29630f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>ki&#39;e la gleki<br><br></d=
iv>I would be interested to see how different brivla are interrelated in te=
rms of their thematic relations. For example:<br><br>porpi<br>spisa<br></di=
v>
</div>daspo<br></div><br></div>{porpi} and {spisa} have the same arguments =
(the whole and the part) in reverse. They are also a dynamic/static counter=
part to each other: something dynamically *becomes* pieces, and something s=
tatically *is* a piece. With {daspo}, an agent comes into the picture, caus=
ing something to become other than its original self (to lose its original =
state), but without specifying that resultant entity (whether spisa1, spofu=
1, or something else).<br>
<br>Many brivla don&#39;t have a static/dynamic counterpart. {morsi} is sta=
tic (something is dead) rather than dynamic (something dies).<br><br>I like=
 the notation used in the monograph below:<br><a href=3D"http://rickm.net16=
.net/lexical_semantics.html">http://rickm.net16.net/lexical_semantics.html<=
/a><br>
</div><div>It may be useful in the semantic analysis of brivla:<br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div>porpi=A0=A0 P/F-d<br></div><div>spisa=A0=A0 F/P-s<br></di=
v><div>daspo=A0=A0 A/P-d<br></div><div><br></div><div>morsi=A0=A0 P-s<br></=
div><div>mrobi&#39;o=A0=A0 P-d<br>
</div><div>catra=A0=A0 A/P/F-d<br></div><div><br>viska=A0=A0 P/F-s<br></div=
><div>catlu=A0=A0 AP/F-s<br><br></div><div>Both viska1 and catlu1 are a pat=
ient to the x2, but catlu1 is also an agent to itself, keeping itself in th=
e state of seeing something (it&#39;s an agent-patient). (And, insofar as a=
 &quot;condition&quot; place is optional for {catlu}, viska3 may be conside=
red equally extraneous and be left out of the notation.)<br>
<br></div><div>According to your list, {viska} and {tirna} belong to the sa=
me &quot;Psycho: Sensation/observation&quot; class, as they should, but {ti=
rna} doesn&#39;t have an AP/F-s counterpart like {viska} does. This kind of=
 analysis can cue us to find lexical partiality and redundancy.<br>
</div><div><br><br></div><div></div>mu&#39;o<br></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 />

--047d7b342cc295a9ec04de29630f--