From jimc@math.ucla.edu Wed May 28 09:33:18 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 May 2003 09:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fern.math.ucla.edu ([128.97.4.251]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19L3rL-0006Ie-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:33:03 -0700 Received: from simba.math.ucla.edu (simba.math.ucla.edu [128.97.4.125]) by fern.math.ucla.edu (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h4SGX2uY014797 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from simba.math.ucla.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simba.math.ucla.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h4SGX23I010247 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:33:02 -0700 Received: from localhost (jimc@localhost) by simba.math.ucla.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h4SGX2x7010244 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:33:02 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: simba.math.ucla.edu: jimc owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Carter To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: antiblotation (was: RE: taksi) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5486 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jimc@math.ucla.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Wed, 28 May 2003, And Rosta wrote: (shortened by jimc) > For any place structure: > > 1. Draw up a list of candidate places. There will be infinitely many. > 2. Is it true that X1 is not a broda if it lacks an X2? Places for > which this isn't true should be tossed. > 3. Toss places easily expressed by other means (e.g. modal phrases). > 3a. Repair places that fail to match the pattern of related brivla. Hear, hear! The more these rules are followed, the easier Lojban will be to learn and to use. In natlangs, overly complicated and irregular verbs are the nemesis of the student, and we can expect the same for our language. Item 2 always sets off a furor, so let me clarify *my* position: it's reasonable to express a negated relation where X1 lacks an X2, provided in other circumstances the X2 were possible. Example: I wanted to be more drunk, but couldn't, because my bottle lacked any X2 (the content). (Suggesting that at one time it had content, which is now inside me.) But X1 is disqualified if no X2 is possible. Example (seen in the wild): We excavated this site and found pot-like things, but they had holes in the bottom. Why did these people make pots, and then turn them into non-pots by putting holes in them, so they couldn't hold content? (Subsequent speculation: they were flowerpots, which qualify because they can contain the soil and plant while letting excess water drain out; if the bottom is soaked, the roots rot.) James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Email: jimc@math.ucla.edu http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc (q.v. for PGP key)