Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d382f50b-fe5f-42ac-94b1-d0e10083b9e4@googlegroups.com>
References: <d382f50b-fe5f-42ac-94b1-d0e10083b9e4@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:32:28 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68qhzADtAi5RxL0rg7JTKwhOxWxJm1D7B0_EG1QarVcC3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A request on zompist bboard
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

I am not registered there, so I can only post here:


Hi!

When you compare two languages, you will usually find out that one
makes some fine semantic distinctions that the other doesn't. So, I
don't think that is a particular characteristic of Lojban.

Its unambiguous syntax is, for me, its most remarkable feature. I
liked the suggestion of contrasting it with examples of ambiguity in
English. So, here is one inspired in a xkcd comic
(http://xkcd.com/1087/):

"The pig is saved from being slaughtered by an intelligent spider."

Cutting it short, the related Lojban vocabulary is as follows:
  {lo xarju}: "The pig"
  {lo mencre jukni}: "The intelligent spider"
  {selcatryfanta}: "x1 prevents x2 from being killed by x3 with
killing method x4"

To get the original ordering of the passive "is saved from", we can
add the operator {se}, which swaps x1 and x2, giving:
  {se selcatryfanta}: "x1 is prevented by x2 from being killed by x3
with killing method x4"

The intended meaning of the sentence (in the children's book) would
then be rendered as
  {lo xarju cu se selcatryfanta lo mencre jukni}
  (The pig (is saved from being slaughtered) by an intelligent spider)

while the alternative interpretation would be
  {lo xarju cu se selcatryfanta fi lo mencre jukni}
  (The pig is saved from (being slaughtered by an intelligent spider))

It gets really easy to the audience if you use a colour for the
arguments ({lo xarju} and {lo mencre jukni}) and another one for the
main relation ({se selcatryfanta}), and label the arguments with "x1",
"x2" and "x3".

The {fi} tag (from the fa-fe-fi-fo-fu series) unambiguosly places {lo
mencre jukni} at position x3, where otherwise it corresponds to
position x2. On the other hand, the thematic preposition "by" is
ambiguous as to whether it refers to the saver or the killer.

{cu} just separates the first argument from the predicate.

Depending on your time and audience interest, you can go further to
explain that:
  1. everything is based on properties and relations, so
       {xarju}: "x1 is a pig of species x2"
       {jukni}: "x1 is a spider of species x2"
       {mencre}: "x1 is intelligent by standard x2"
   2. {mencre} and {selcatryfanta} are just compounds from the basic words
       {menli}: "x1 is a mind of x2"
       {certu}: "x1 is skilled at x2 by standard x3"
       {catra}: "x1 kills x2 by method x3"
       {fanta}: "x1 prevents x2 from happening"

You can also talk briefly about attitudinals and evidentials, which are amusing.

Some details, just for reference:
  1. More straightforward expressions of each meaning are
      {lo mencre jukni cu fanta lo du'u lo xarju cu se catra}
      "The intelligent spider prevents that the pig be killed"
      {fanta lo du'u lo mencre jukni cu catra lo xarju}
      "Something prevents that the intelligent spider kill the pig"
  2. Some (maybe most, I don't know) lojbanists would insist that, in
the case where the spider saves the pig, it is not really the
arthropode who prevents the slaughter, but some action by it taken.
This implicit abstraction would be marked with a {tu'a} prefixing the
description, so,
      {lo xarju cu se selcatryfanta tu'a lo mencre jukni}
  3. {mencre} is a common word, defined in the dictionary.
{selcatryfanta}, on the other hand, was just made up. However, it
follows a very regular pattern, which assures me that any competent
lojbanist should have no problem understanding it. We call this
/jvajvo/, from {javni}, "rule", and {lujvo}, "compound".


Hoping to have helped!

mi'e .filipos.


On 10 June 2013 02:36, la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.incatena.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=41887
>
> [...]
>
> I request some help from any Lojbanists who may see this
>
> I am making a presentation on conlangs, and I make a passing reference to
> Lojban. I mention that is an engineered/logical language, but I also want to
> show the people what is this all about.
>
> [...]
>
> ----
> will somebody help 'em?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.