Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 15:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: transfire@gmail.com
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <fc544878-d257-43f7-a3c6-f4f27b949f66@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <537E70A1.4080707@gmx.de>
References: <b3d39fc1-7bcf-42c7-accf-5bf992ff183d@googlegroups.com> <CAP=UV6qxw48A4oNRqpyR1UFEnoQ6yTNdQy03E=p2is7W6wUoUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <537E70A1.4080707@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_3212_871019406.1407363459736"
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_3212_871019406.1407363459736
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:48:17 PM UTC-4, selpa'i wrote:

>
> Usage and definitions are drifting further and further apart, 
>
>
It is interesting to read this. Yesterday, I was considering the nature of 
natural languages and wondering why they tend to be binary predicate 
systems (e.g. nominative-accusative). So I was thinking about the word 
`klama` and it's five slots. It became very clear to me that that last two 
sumti would be subject to natural drift because it would be easy to forget 
the order they are supposed to be in. So people would start to use them 
incorrectly. Yet others would still understood what was meant by context, 
so it wouldn't really matter. And I concluded that eventually it would most 
likely (d)evolve into a 4-slot gismu where the last sumti meant a more 
general "means of transportation".

From there I played around with what a binary predicate Lojban might look 
like. It is quite possible actually, but it is a bit stilted in some 
respects. Consider if `klama` meant only that 
`x1-comes/goes-via-the-route-x2`. How then would one specify `to` and 
`from`? That would require an additional predicate that means 
`origin-x1-connects-to-destination-x2`, then you'd have to plug that 
construct into the `x2` slot of `klama`. Its a bit cumbersome and makes one 
wonder if there might be more streamlined ways of doing relative clauses. 
It really makes one wonder how natural languages are so good at it. (The 
answer of course is prepositions.) In any case, I determined that binary 
predication isn't *quite* Lojban's cup of tea.

However, after some further exploration, I found that Lojban worked quite 
well using a ternary system --essentially adding the dative that some 
natural languages do support. (e.g. English "He gave her it.) Note that 
very very few natural languages support anything more the three objects 
--all other object's must be handled via subordinate clauses like 
prepositional phrases. For Lojban at least, three seems to be the magic 
number at which point the whole of the gimste starts to click.

In your quest to reform the gimste, you might want to take this into 
consideration. I am not necessarily saying the 4th and 5th slots should be 
completely removed, but I do think it would at least be a worthwhile 
general principle to try to keep each gismu within that limit of three (vs 
the opposite inclination to fill all the slots up).


.trans.

-- 
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/d/optout.

------=_Part_3212_871019406.1407363459736
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>On Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:48:17 PM UTC-4, selpa'i w=
rote:<br></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;ma=
rgin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Usage =
and definitions are drifting further and further apart,&nbsp;<br><br></bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>It is interesting to read this. Yesterday, I was=
 considering the nature of natural languages and wondering why they tend to=
 be binary predicate systems (e.g. nominative-accusative). So I was thinkin=
g about the word `klama` and it's five slots. It became very clear to me th=
at that last two sumti would be subject to natural drift because it would b=
e easy to forget the order they are supposed to be in. So people would star=
t to use them incorrectly. Yet others would still understood what was meant=
 by context, so it wouldn't really matter. And I concluded that eventually =
it would most likely (d)evolve into a 4-slot gismu where the last sumti mea=
nt a more general "means of transportation".</div></div><div><br></div><div=
>From there I played around with what a binary predicate Lojban might look =
like. It is quite possible actually, but it is a bit stilted in some respec=
ts. Consider if `klama` meant only that `x1-comes/goes-via-the-route-x2`. H=
ow then would one specify `to` and `from`? That would require an additional=
 predicate that means `origin-x1-connects-to-destination-x2`, then you'd ha=
ve to plug that construct into the `x2` slot of `klama`. Its a bit cumberso=
me and makes one wonder if there might be more streamlined ways of doing re=
lative clauses. It really makes one wonder how natural languages are so goo=
d at it. (The answer of course is prepositions.) In any case, I determined =
that binary predication isn't *quite* Lojban's cup of tea.</div><div><br></=
div><div>However, after some further exploration, I found that Lojban worke=
d quite well using a ternary system --essentially adding the dative that so=
me natural languages do support. (e.g. English "He gave her it.) Note that =
very very few natural languages support anything more the three objects --a=
ll other object's must be handled via subordinate clauses like prepositiona=
l phrases. For Lojban at least, three seems to be the magic number at which=
 point the whole of the gimste starts to click.</div><div><br></div><div>In=
 your quest to reform the gimste, you might want to take this into consider=
ation. I am not necessarily saying the 4th and 5th slots should be complete=
ly removed, but I do think it would at least be a worthwhile general princi=
ple to try to keep each gismu within that limit of three (vs the opposite i=
nclination to fill all the slots up).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><d=
iv>.trans.</div><div><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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_3212_871019406.1407363459736--