From clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 16 08:37:46 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:37:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web81306.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.81])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1D1SBF-0000J4-On
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:37:38 -0800
Message-ID: <20050216163706.11581.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.50.222] by web81306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:37:06 PST
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:37:06 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Fwd: Re: Re: Oldbie Question from private mail.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 9478
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:18:52 -0800 (PST)
> From: John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Oldbie Question from
> private mail.
> To: lojbab@lojban.org
> 
> 
> --- Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> 
> > John E Clifford wrote:
> > 
> > >As one of the people who think that the
> basic
> > >comparative form of the "adjectival" brivla
> is
> > >one of the better features of Loglan (and
> > >dropping it one of the flaws of Lojban), let
> > me
> > >add some notes here.
> > >
> > >1. The decision to set up adjectives this
> way
> > in 
> > >Loglan was based on studies of the
> > _linguistic_
> > >behavior of such words, how best to account
> > for
> > >that behavior at a fundamental level.  Thus,
> > much
> > >of the stuff about theories in physics or
> > >psychology or art were irrelevant (as they
> > should
> > >have been) to the basic concepts -- though
> > they
> > >play roles in related notions like "color"
> and
> > >"weight" and the like.
> > >  
> > >
> > But Loglan/Lojban has no "adjectives".  So as
> a
> > Nora puts it, if 
> > linguistically we have to make blanu
> > comparative, we also have to make 
> > jubme comparative.  There is nothing more
> > adjectival about blanu than jubme.
> 
> Perfectly true but not relevant.  We can -- and
> do -- make a variety of subclasses of gismu
> (hence brivla generally) and this is just one
> of
> them; calling it "adjectival" is merely a
> convenience as it works to indicate the group
> to
> English speakers -- which is almost all of use.
>  
> > >2. The theory involved was primarily about
> > >attributive usage ("blue dog"), secondarily
> > about
> > >predicative ("dog is blue") and hardly at
> all
> > >about more abstract usage ("That color is
> > blue"),
> > >though that is ultimately accounted for as
> > well.
> > >
> > In other words, it wasn't even designed as a
> > predicate, but only for use 
> > in tanru where the place structure seldom
> > matters because almost no one 
> > uses be/bei to specify modifiers.
> 
> Certainly not "only for tanru" although the
> tanru
> usage was taken -- on interesting linguistic
> grounds -- as being primary.  The other usage
> was
> derivative.  And, it should be noted, in the
> tanru position at the appropriate level the
> second place was functional, even if it was
> lost
> in later developments.
> 
> > The only other words that are brivla and were
> > expected to be rarely used 
> > as selbri were the metric prefixes.  The
> > culture words initially leaned 
> > toward being attributive as well, but we had
> to
> > choose a place structure 
> > that would work as a standalone selbri.  The
> > same is true for the color 
> > words.
> 
> The move to standalone selbri was accompanied
> --
> from the present point of view -- by a
> detachment
> from the basic perceptual usage of the terms in
> favor of a more abstract notion.  this is not a
> simple change of role, then, but pushing some
> furter agenda. (I note, by the way, that even
> in
> the (old) official list {blanu} is marked as a
> color adjective -- apparently the 
> classification's value has been recognized
> fairly
> continuously.)
> 
> > >"Scientific" color theories (for example) is
> > >primarily about the last sort and is thus
> > remote
> > >from primary uses of color words.
> > >  
> > >
> > You never gave this impression, since you as
> > editor of TL allowed a huge 
> > chunk of the first year of public discussion
> of
> > Loglan to be esoteric 
> > discussions of scientific and other aspects
> of
> > color %^)
> 
> As editor I was more or less stuck with dealing
> with what I was supplied by contributors.  To
> be
> sure, I did comment on much of this material
> and,
> when appopriate, tried to steer the discussion
> around to making sure that what we were talking
> about in those pages were the words for "color"
> and the like, not {blanu}.  I did not always
> succeed.
> 
> > >3.  Within the primary use of color terms,
> the
> > >main problem in Loglan was always "What goes
> > in
> > >the unfilled second place?"  The general
> > answer
> > >was (and is) that unfilled places are
> treated
> > as
> > >particularly quantified variables, but that
> > >clearly does not work for adjectives of this
> > >sort, since anything (well, just about) is
> > bluer
> > >than something and, thus, blue. 
> > >
> > Precisely.  Which is why we had to throw out
> > the comparative form, or 
> > change the fundamental nature of Lojban
> > ellipsis, introducing exceptions 
> > (horrors!) or dividing brivla into arbitrary
> > semantic categories (also 
> > horrors!)
> 
> Yes, as I noted.  The point is that the
> ellipsis
> rules were always arbitrary and the general
> rule
> is regularly violated in special cases -- often
> on a word-by-word basis rather than by classes.
> 
> To have lost a fundamental insight of this sort
> for a specious uniformity does seem to me to
> have
> been a  mistake (as I argued at the time,
> indeed).
>  
> > > But, of course,
> > >that was not the convention for adjectives,
> > >though people frequently forgot -- or liked
> to
> > >argue for the confusion it shed.  In
> > attributive
> > >position, {blanu broda}, what was needed was
> a
> > >broda blue than the normal (typical,...)
> broda
> > --
> > >which might not be very blue at all or might
> > be
> > >very blue indeed, depending.  In predicative
> > >position, the missing place was just again
> the
> > >norm for whatever sort of thing the subject
> > was
> > >(though this could be open to a variety of
> > >interpretations even if the species were
> > >specified in naming the subject).
> > >  
> > >
> > Unfortunately, the emergence of a paragon
> > theory of semantics argued 
> > against that.  The comparison is not "more X
> > than a standard" but "more 
> > like the paragon X than some arbitrary
> allowed
> > amount of difference".
> 
> Paragon theory hardly "emerged, " having been
> around for about 2000 years and regularly
> refuted
> by experience.  In any case, it dealt with a
> different situation that was met with in the
> underlying linguistic logic of the base
> comparison model.  Paragon thoey has bnever
> been
> able to explain, for example, how blue dogs are
> blue, since they paragonically are not.
> 
> > >5.  At some point in Loglan days, JCB came
> up
> > >with the "for a" locution (it may have been
> in
> > >the original studies -- I have lost the
> > >references on them) to make the case
> clearer:
> > a
> > >blue dog is a dog that is blue for a dog,
> not
> > >simply a dog that is (in some absolute
> sense)
> > >blue.  Indeed, if we went by the scientific
> > >stuff, a blue dog probably wouldn't be blue
> at
> > >all, being nearer to several other standard
> > chips
> > >(or whatever test) than to blue.  But, as
> dogs
> > go
> > >(they not ever getting very close to
> standard
> > >blues, after all) it is blue.
> > >  
> > >
> > But that format only works for attributive
> > concepts.  Otherwise we have 
> > to deal with
> > le prenu cu jubme
> > being plausible meaning
> > That person is tablish for a person.
> 
> But of course {jubme} doesn't -- and never did
> --
> have a comparison place.  so this line is
> simply
> irrelevant -- unless you hold that any place
> any
> predicate has every predicate has to have,
> which
> is a bit much even for the most regularist
> sorts.
>