Return-Path: Date: Fri, 31 May 91 13:47:17 EDT From: "Arthur W. Protin Jr." (GC-ACCURATE) To: "Arthur W. Protin Jr." Cc: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com Subject: Re: cleft place structures Message-Id: <9105311347.aa27356@COR4.PICA.ARMY.MIL> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri May 31 14:19:09 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Folks, I started this mostly as inertia, resistance to change. Now I find that I rationally oppose the suggested revision to "galfi" to address the "cleft place structure" problem. Commuting home last night I thought about the problem and I not only find John Cowan's argument insufficiant but I now think that it is inappropriate: W-S ALERT. I expect the language to allow me to freely express bizarre ideas without the interference of the "language police". Just as I should be allow to say I modify the blue wall into the red wall by the act of your spreading paint. I should also be allowed to say le nu mi mlatu HH The act of me catting is the process which galfi le blanu bitmu le xunre lalxu modified the blue wall into the red lake. where HH is either the x1/x4 swapping indicator for the old definition of galfi or is nothing for the new one. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE LANGUAGE SYNTAX TO BE MODIFIED TO RESTRICT WHAT CAN BE SAID. (I have no objection to making nonsense look like nonsense, but nonsense still has to be allowed.) ---- In thinking about the cleft place structure problem I found I wanted some indicators (cmavo) that I could not find (I may have actually seen them in the list but did not recognize them as the indicators that I wanted.) I will describe the bunch of them and their usage using symbols that are outside of the language. Let me call them here "Hi", "H1'o", "H1'a", "H2'o", "H2'a" .... The first of these, "Hi", binds to a predicate ("brivla"?) and the others are pseudo-predicates (like "mo"). (I have a little problem, I forgot to lookup the three basic tense indicators so please substitute them in where I use "hp" for past, "hc" for present, and "hf" for future. (It is annoying that these had to change from loglan).) The pseudo-predicates come in matched pairs, "H1'o" with "H1'a", and I am not sure how many are needed. The first of each pair ,"'o", is the (radical) binding form while the other is the bound form. The binding form takes is definition from the usage and the bound form allows that definition to be referenced. The first example of usage assumes delusions of grandeur on my part: la dactr. braun. hp H1'o .i la lojbab. hc H1'o Dr. Brown was this-pred. Lojbab is this-pred. .i mi hf H1'a I will-be that-pred. The purpose of the indicator "Hi" is to reference a predicate without allowing any of its place structure to be occupied. The indicator "le" references the thing which occupies a place. (Since I don't have a predicate for the above example, let us imagine that one was/is/will-be found and read it in place of the symbol "HreHo") Hi HreHo du Hi H1'a the predicate (what-ever-we-find) equals ...that-pred. (Gosh, this looks really strange with one one real word in it.) This indicator, "Hi", that I want is the one that I thought was the appropriate one for use to reference the 4th place of galfi. As in mi galfi le blanu bitmu le xunre bitmu Hi cinta preja I modify the blue wall into the red wall by paint-spreading. Thus, while I would be allowing you to believe that I paint-spread to modify the wall, I am not saying that, nor am I saying that it was one event, nor am I saying that red paint was spread. If I want to express these details I will follow this statement with others that elaborate. If you feel a need to know these details you will inquire. While we are on this example again, what is wrong with saying mi galfi le blanu bitmu le xunre I modify the blue wall into the red [thing]. or mi galfi le blanu bitmu lo xunre I modify the blue wall into a red [thing]. where either we both know that the red thing is the wall that we knew as blue OR we both know what other red thing it became OR I am being dishonest by allowing you to think that the result was a red wall. I see the second of this pair as saying that the thing we knew as the blue wall was changed such that it is now really red and we can still refer to it as the blue wall. Interestingly the sentence mi galfi le blanu bitmu le xunre bitmu I modify the blue wall into the red wall seems to require only the revision of the reference. Thus mi galfi le blanu bitmu le xunre bitmu dei pamoi I modify the blue wall into the red wall by this utterance can easily be true because you will now know that what we called the blue wall we now call the red wall. thank you all, Arthur Protin Arthur Protin These are my personal views and do not reflect those of my boss or this installation.