Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc Return-Path: Message-Id: <9105060425.AA17172@julia.math.ucla.edu> To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Subject: diklujvo (Regular Compounds) Date: Sun, 05 May 91 21:25:37 -0700 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon May 6 01:58:38 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc diklujvo (Regular Compounds) Jim Carter, 91.5.4 Abstract: -gua!spi has been successful with three forms of diklujvo (regular compounds). Events: the sub-word forms a "le nu" abstraction. Parallel: typically the mover and the destination are also related by a compound directional property; a noun-adjective (like diklujvo) is also parallel. Transitive: the sub-word is the object of an action. The synthesized arguments get main bridi sumti replicated into them; this is useful in explicit sumti as well. It helps a lot if gismu cases are regular. In "The Welding Shop" all but two of the tanru / lujvo were rendered as diklujvo. First a point about terminology. JCB (L1 p. 44) introduced the concept of "N-place predicates" and Lojban continues this tradition. However, in languages like Latin or Russian with very noticeable case structure, the case tags act as "place tags" to show which case / "place" each argument goes in. The ancient concept of case fits perfectly our need to talk about the various formal parameters (cases, places) of a predicate. And it is familiar to linguists new to Lojban even if the more mathematical L1 terminology is not. For these reasons I recommend that we say "case" rather than "place". In the same place JCB describes predicates as relations between arguments, and again Lojban continues this tradition. To my mind, the emphasis on predicate relations is the foundation feature of Loglan and Lojban. This is sufficient justification for a campaign to interpret (what now are) non-predicate grammatical structures as abbreviations or surface structures that can be transformed to the predicate form. Another justification is that predicate relations are tractable theoretically whereas other meaning classes, such as metaphors and paralinguistic grunts, are so unclear as to be beyond the reach of logical analysis, including analysis by a machine or a beginning human student. Already it is said that all sumti tcita can be understood as fi'o , putting the containing bridi and the tagged sumti (if any) in the relation predicated by the gismu. Another target for the campaign (not yet accomplished) is the indicator class. Of late there has been considerable discussion about tanru, lujvo, and their case structures. This essay is about how to interpret many of them as predicate combinations of gismu. It turns out to be quite simple. A review of the lujvo in L4 (the Loglan dictionary) showed that about 90% of them could be interpreted according to some simple rules, and substantially more could be made regular if a few gismu cases were reordered. In designing -gua!spi I set a goal to make diklujvo (regular compounds) even more productive. This would mean that a speaker could create such compounds on the fly and could expect any listener to understand, without either one needing to memorize large numbers of dictionary lujvo. Only the most figurative meanings would have to be rendered by a true metaphor. What I describe here are the -gua!spi rules, modified to fit Lojban conventions. They may be considered a starting point for defining Lojban diklujvo. The most common lujvo type (in -gua!spi) involves an event argument. Some gismu have a case obviously intended for an event argument, such as binxo (x1 becomes [event] x2 under conditions [event*] x3), that is, (x1 changes so [event] x2 becomes true...). With this main word the lujvo or tanru partner or sub-word is to be taken out and inserted as an abstraction in the main word's case. For example: la kiras. cu ja'ibi'o le falnu la kiras. cu jgari binxo le falnu Kira takes hold of the sail la kiras. goi ko'u cu binxo le nu jgari ko'u le falnu Kira changes so (he holds the sail) Several points: (1) Students and machines know that this rule applies because the dictionary says binxo x2 is for an event, and also that x3 is ineligible. (2) A bridi must include sumti (arguments). If you want the synthesized event argument to mean something you must copy into its first case the first case of binxo. (3) Automatic replication is very useful even when the event is said explicitly (le nu). Even cases ineligible for compounding, like x3 of binxo, may want auto-replication. (4) Where do following sumti go, on the event or on the main bridi? Usually for proper meaning they should go on the event. -gua!spi case structures tend to rely on sumti tcita for details like x3 of binxo, but if there is a following case it's important, so the rule is that following cases (if any) of the main selbri are filled first, and leftover sumti are dumped into the event. But Lojbanists may prefer to retain detail cases and to fill the event first. (5) Lujvo and tanru are analysed exactly the same way. Some more examples: ko'u ja'ifi'i ko'o lo xance be ko'u ko'u jgari friti ko'o lo xance be ko'u He offers it his hand ko'u friti ko'o le nu ko'o jgari lo xance be ko'u He offers it (it [may] hold his hand) friti x3 is the event argument and x2 is replicated into it. Most event arguments need the case before the event to be copied -- usually the event is x2 but sometimes it is x3 and needs a copy of x2, and there are a few irregular replications that remain in -gua!spi. When a comparison or sort order is involved, the event's x2 may also have to be copied in. Incoming sets may have to be strung out in extension. All these details are noted in the dictionary and are extracted and acted on by the parser. ko'u carnri'a ko'o ko'u carna rinka ko'o He turns it over ko'u rinka le nu ko'o carna He causes (it rotates) Here no auto-replication is wanted. I believe this is the standard transitive conversion pattern in Lojban analogous to "he makes it rotate". xu selcapstidji do xu se ckape sisti djica do Don't you want to be rescued? xu do djica le nu do sisti le nu do se ckape Don't you want (you stop (you in peril)) In nested tanru outer sumti are replicated recursively to inner event arguments. Standard Lojban associativity fits with JCB's practice of putting the main word last in a lujvo or tanru, though I find the -gua!spi order more comfortable with the main word first. I doubt even the Oxford English Dictionary has a natural language equivalent as specialized as selcapstidji "desires safety". Isn't it wonderful to offer this kind of wordmaking power in a form that any student can handle? ko'u krici le nu ko'o ckape He believes that it is dangerous ko'u krici le nu ko'o ckape kei ko'o He believes of it that it is dangerous In -gua!spi "believe" is defined "x1 believes that x2 satisfies [event] x3" with x2 replicated to x3 -- this order is typical for a main word productive of infinitive compounds. On the other hand, Lojban has "x1 believes x2 about x3". There is considerable utility in changing case structures to fit the majority pattern because students only need to learn one pattern and a few exceptions. With either definition, in this example the event argument has its x1 explicitly, but of whom is this bridi believed? The main predicate lacks that sumti. Just as sumti can be replicated from the main bridi into the event bridi, they can be retro-replicated from the event to the main bridi to complete it. In the second most common lujvo form (in -gua!spi) two words share sumti in parallel. The major but not only application is with motion words and directional properties. ko'o gargrelimna lei djacu ko'o gapru pagre limna lei djacu It swims down through the water ko'o limna lei djacu .ije ko'o gapru lei djacu .ije ko'o pagre lei djacu It swims to the water; it is above (the same) water; it penetrates the water The gismu opposite the English meaning often turns up: it swims from above. This pattern works best when one word has exactly two cases, or when both words have identical case structures. ko'u ti'eja'i leko'o stedu ko'u trixe jgari leko'o stedu He holds its head from behind ko'u trixe je jgari leko'o stedu ko'u trixe leko'o stedu .ije ko'u jgari leko'o stedu He is behind its head; he holds its head This parallel compound has no motion word. ko'u ci'acpu ko'o lei vacri ko'u cnita lacpu ko'o lei vacri He pulls it up to the air ko'u lacpu ko'o lei vacri .ije ko'o cnita lei vacri He pulls it to the air; it is below the air For transitive motion words the object, not the actor, relates directionally to the destination. ko'u batlafti ko'o fo lei vacri ko'u bartu lafti ko'o fo lei vacri He lifts it out of the water ko'u lafti ko'o fo lei vacri .ije ko'o bartu lei vacri He lifts it from the water; it is out of the water Specially for bartu "outside" and sepli "separate", what counts is the mover's relation to where it was, not where it is going. These two words are therefore watched for and treated specially. lo diklujvo lo dikni lujvo lo lujvo poi dikni A regular compound word An adjective-noun combination can be translated very neatly as a parallel compound; the shared x1 case is occupied by the placeholder through which the sumti referent set is exported. Needless to say, compound construction is much easier if motion words all have the same cases despite slight differences in meaning. Also motion words are the most complicated of all, and it helps students learn them if they have a common pattern. It is my judgement that these factors outweigh the utility of having cases individually crafted to match the meanings, with nonstandard orders or missing cases where they are deemed irrelevant to the meaning. The third most common pattern (in -gua!spi) is transitive: an action upon an object. This pattern was more common in Old Loglan -- possibly because of JCB's Anglicisms. Here is an example with two transitive lujvo. ju'ocu'inai le vijsazri pumo'u jacvasxu ju'ocu'inai le vinji sazri pumo'u djacu vasxu Maybe the pilot already drowned ju'ocu'inai le sazri be lo'e vinji pumo'u vasxu loi djacu Maybe the operator of airplanes already breathed water The sub-word usually goes in x2 of the main word, though there are a number of exceptions. The article (lo'e vs. loi in this example) is determined mainly by the main word, and in -gua!spi is provided from the main word's dictionary entry. How do you know whether a compound is transitive or parallel? In -gua!spi the tones tell, but it will take some research to produce an unambiguous rule for Lojban. It isn't adequate just to mark it in the dictionary; there are too many words, like transitive motion words, for which some sub-words should be parallel and some should be transitive. ji mijfe'o lomi nebtau ji minji fenso lomi cnebo taxfu I machine-sew my tie ji fenso fo lo minji lo taxfu be mi bei lo cnebo be mi I sew with a machine my garment for my neck Here x4 of fenso, the tool, should attract transitive compounds, not x2. In -gua!spi I define "x1 is a garment of wearer x2 for its body part x3", and as in Lojban, body parts are "x1 is a (part) of creature x2". x3 of taxfu clearly is productive for transitive compounds, but whose neck is the garment for? x2 of taxfu should be replicated into x2 of the synthesized x3 transitive argument. A major attraction of diklujvo (and argument replication generally) is that sumti predicates can be provided with sub-arguments automatically, producing the meanings which "common sense" tells a human speaker -- but not a machine. Here I use the convention that the post-article sumti (as in "lemi") is fed to x2 of the main selbri, and only if no case can accept it is "ne mi" generated. With body parts and garments this rule produces correct predicate relations; with most materials, foods and artifacts it yields the desired "ne mi"; and it rarely prevents use of "lemi" because the wrong case would be filled. Here are the only remaining true metaphors from "The Welding Shop" translated to -gua!spi (with Lojban gismu shown). All others could be interpreted as diklujvo. tirxu tavla tiger talk nag (the metaphor is Chinese) cinta gacri paint cover painted (when the covering was welding flux, not paint) In Lojban how will you recognize true metaphors? The indicator ta'u (tanru) seems to be for that purpose, but a infix connective seems more appropriate. In Lojban as in Old Loglan the lujvo case structures are individually crafted and can be substantially different from either of the component words. Thus the cases are more useful, being adapted to the exact meaning chosen for the lujvo, but are also harder for the student, since he must memorize lujvo the same as gismu. For diklujvo this policy must be abandoned; you must jump over useless cases or use sumti tcita to hit missing ones, but if you know all the gismu you automatically know an infinite set of lujvo because the rules tell you what they mean, including cases. In practice, if the gismu cases are set up carefully but regularly there are few useless or missing cases, and I judge that the benefits far outweigh the costs of having diklujvo.