From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 04 07:46:34 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYLHd-0002IP-Nh for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:46:34 -0700 Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.211.172]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MYLHZ-0002GW-Lg for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:46:33 -0700 Received: by ywh2 with SMTP id 2so10976164ywh.2 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rscPJeBGPORnm/iEZ6S+nmsCVwVLcmBQN3wQOLJbbFc=; b=F8LB1hTCUMqYc4WZ/r1rYwlp33snRwK59abPG/jKCJknDuKm7Xu95EBX7PWFbRocC2 M/i+o2GNN4REJdc3a5OTB+SLs/jzZbDb+A8nNyBMLS0Ey+DfGXmCKmbSz0QgsZJ+Jyam 0AG6Psrx3eZHwsQOBpjcyc+vDT2XJ1WZH5NNE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=aNE02ym4pv8VdxKg23AL8IOgx/XNmFy4qF3b6jV1BRxMsJhTIalTyqcFmqct66PKKK vs9bcIWSwHHa+u3gpJB0pgUKsUSHWCDNZ8sTdKKP1nLACO0HmhvkkaF7a5uJx7H04y3k W4hn+AlSa3WFIOpxJ3xo6RRh26GIlrbxAVjYA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.31.13 with SMTP id e13mr2987192age.1.1249397181939; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090804094557.GE2912@nvg.org> References: <20090804094557.GE2912@nvg.org> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:46:21 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17560908040746o688f47d0g135d9fdf02cc09da@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: The correct interpretation of {sisti}? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 15891 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > 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. The subject of an intransitive verb can be the agent. In "John runs", John is the agent of the action, so I don't think a transitive/intransitive distinction helps here. Both interpretations would be "transitive", if by that we mean that the gismu has an x2 place. The question is whether "x1 [agent]" means that x1 has to be the agent of the stopping only, or whether it is also required to be the agent of the action in x2. In both cases x1 is an agent. > * "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". See however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_(grammar) "For example, in the sentence His energy surprised everyone, His energy is the agent, even though it does not have most of the typical agent-like qualities such as perception, movement, or volition." I agree though that a fire extinguishing is more like a patient than 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. But "fanmo" is not a change of state like "sisti" is. In any case, the non-agentive "comes to an end" would have to be "tolcfa" (or "selfambi'o"). We have four cases: tolcfa: non-agentive "x1 comes to an end" sisti: agentive "x1 stops doing x2" tolcfagau: agentive "x1 brings x2 to an end" stigau: double-agentive "x1 makes x2 stop doing x3" > * 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. There are gismu where x1 is the agent of action x2: zukte, troci, snada, fliba... A rationalization of gismu place structures would be something good, but probably it should be done with some system, looking at whole classes of gismu, not one at a time. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.