From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 04 02:46:34 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYGbK-0001CV-Gj for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:46:34 -0700 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYGbG-0001CF-GO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:46:34 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:2000:2a0:c9ff:feab:76e2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39C894795 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:45:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n749jvTk003621 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:45:57 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id n749jvb6003620 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:45:57 +0200 Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:45:57 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] The correct interpretation of {sisti}? Message-ID: <20090804094557.GE2912@nvg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 15889 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Sarefo's recent work on {fagysti} and {fagystigau} has revealed a possible ambiguity in the definition of {sisti}: x1 [agent] ceases/stops/halts/ends activity/process/state x2 [not necessarily completing it]. There are two possible interpretations, as far as we have been able to determine: a) x1 (agent) causes event x2 to stop. b) x1 discontinues being/doing x2. Data in favour of interpretation a): * "agent" in definitions are usually contrastive wrt. intransitive verbs: there is an implication that something is being brought about. * "agent" in the definition implies that someone is capable of acting. It is absurd to call an inanimate process such as a fire an "agent". * It fills a semantic gap. If {sisti} has meaning a), then {fanmo} can be used for meaning b). But if {sisti} has meaning b), then a lujvo is necessary. * Interpretation b) would be overspecified. Since the x1 is already embedded in the x2 (even though it may not be overtly present), it could be deleted, and the x2 moved to the front, thus: "x1 (event) stops." There has been an effort to purge the gismu list of such double specification; the fact that this has not happened here makes it more plausible that a genuine agentive is intended. Data in favour of interpretation b): * The lujvo "fagysti", with the meaning "be extinguished" has significant antiquity; likewise "fagystigau" with the meaning "put out". If interpretation a) is correct, then "fagysti" is incorrect and "fagystigau" is redundant. * The English word "cease", according to the dictionaries I have access to, _always_ means to discontinue, _never_ to stop something that one is not inself involved in. * Most usage has a person in the x1, and something the person stops doing in the x2. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove you're not a dog. --Bill de hÓra To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.