Message-Id: <m0haASA-0002QfC@marob.masa.com>
From: wetblu!uunet!marob.masa.com!cowan (John Cowan)
Subject: Proposed changes to lexeme ZIhA grammar
To: snark.uu.NET!lojban-list
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 13:34:02 EDT
Status: RO

It's me again, with one of those nutty proposals -- hopefully true in both
the sense "insane, crazy" and in the sense "possessing a kernel [of
truth/usefulness/logic]".

This proposal is for a simplification of a small and fairly obscure part
of the Lojban grammar: lexeme ZIhA.  The information herein is based on
the 6 May 1990 grammar (not 5 May as incorrectly stated in earlier postings).
I will use the same format as before:  present system, new proposal,
rationale.


THE PRESENT SYSTEM:

Lexeme ZIhA contains the "connectives for compound relative clauses".
Members of the lexeme serve to join multiple relative clauses which are
relativizing the same sumti.  Except for what is connected, the grammar of
lexeme ZIhA is exactly parallel to that of the afterthought logical connectives
of lexeme A.  The cmavo "zi'a" = or, "zi'e" = and, "zi'i" = interrogative,
"zi'o" = if-and-only-if, and "zi'u" = whether-or-not are defined, and may
be compounded with prefixed "se" and/or "na" and/or suffixed "nai".  In
addition, grouping can be established with "bo" and "ke...ke'e" constructions.


PROPOSED CHANGE:

Scrap the entire system except for a single cmavo, "zi'e", of lexeme ZIhE.
This is not taken to be a logical connective, but simply signals that the
relative clauses on either side both relativize the same sumti.  Its intuitive
English translation is "and".


RATIONALE:

When a logical connection is really needed, the relative clauses can be
merged and the contents connected with an appropriate kind of connective
from another lexeme.  The only exceptions are: relative phrases (lexeme
GOI) merged with relative clauses proper (lexeme NOI), and restrictive
(pVV) merged with non-restrictive (nVV) phrases or clauses.

The first exception is illusory.  Every relative phrase can be rewritten
as a relative clause with an appropriate bridi or pseudo-bridi:  for example,
"po'u" can be rewritten as "poi du" and "po" as "poi stici".  If a logical
connection is needed after this rewriting, lexeme GIhA is appropriate.

Here is an example.  Consider the vocative:
	doi namcu po le spano jecta zi'a poi damba tebei le spano jecta
which means:
	Men of Spain, or who fight for Spain!
and might come from a Spanish Civil War recruiting poster.  Note the stilted
nature of this even in English.  This can be rewritten as:
	doi namcu poi stici le spano jecta gi'a damba tebei le spano jecta
which means:
	Men who are specific-to Spain or fight for Spain!

The second exception is also, I believe, illusory.  I have been unable to
construct a sentence that joins a restrictive and a non-restrictive relative
clause with any connective other than "and".  I believe that the other
connectives fail the test of language: they simply do not mean anything that
is, well, meaningful.

In addition, they complicate the language with an additional, mostly unneeded,
set of constructs which complicate the job of language learners.  One may be
said to "know" a language even if one does not know all of the content words:
in English there are half a million, and even in Lojban the 1300-odd gismu
are supplemented with arbitrarily many lujvo and le'avla.  But those who
know a language surely know all of the structure-defining words, the cmavo
in Lojban terminology.  To have a group of cmavo that are never going to be
used means an extra burden for both human and mechanical Lojban-understanders,
since one must be able to understand every construct even if one never
utters them oneself.

Please send comments to the address below, or lojban-list@snark.uu.net,
or by snail mail to:
	John Cowan
	Chemical Bank
	95 Wall St., 6th floor
	New York NY 10005  USA

-- 
cowan@marob.masa.com			(aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban