Return-Path: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 02:40 EDT From: lojbab (Bob LeChevalier) To: lojban-list Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jun 11 02:41:07 1991 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab Subject: A second way to handle cleft place structures 2nd of 6 related messages There is a second way to handle cleft place structure situations in a Loglan/Lojban with uncleft structures. (Note that all versions of Loglan are plagued by cleft structures, and that in Lojban we are merely recognizing and trying to resolve the semantics problems that result. I welcome Steve Rice or any other Institute Loglanist to address the issue and indicate if the Institute has recognized or resolved it (and how)). This other method is to use "gau" from selma'o BAI. One of the few place structure changes that have been formally adopted is the clarification that gasnu means "x1 is the actor/agent in doing event/process/activity x2". In other words, "gasnu" is inherently defined to be cleft, with the actor/agent extracted from the action. There is no meaning to "do" that avoids a cleft structure. "lifri" is the corresponding (also cleft) word for a passive/patient/experiencer. ("zukte" is a third word with a mandatory cleft structure since an action with goal requires an 'actor' to adopt that goal. We may find that a couple more words must have cleft structures due to the inherent mental state of an actor that must be identified to evaluate the truth of the predication.) Using John Cowan's example from message 1: lenu mi cinta cu galfi le bitmu The event-of (I paint) modifies the wall is expressed using: gau mi galfi le bitmu with-agent me (some-x1-event-unspecified) modifies the wall This gives the same effect as sumti raising, but is more clear in that sumti raising need not always involve raising an 'agent' (e.g the door that is tried). It also, by avoiding the difficult place in the place structure, weakens that place structure, and more importantly fails to recognize a hidden logical structure. Indeed, there is no explicitly marked link between the added agentive place, and the ellipsized x1 sumti. In causality discussions, for example, a claim about the agent of a change may be independent of the event that physically causes, motivates, justifies, or logically entails the result. sumti-raising is more vague semantically, but more precise logically. Put another way BAI clearly specifies the semantic relation between the sumti and the rest of the bridi, while labelled sumti-raising clearly specifies that hidden ellipsis is present. Both methods are a kind of ellipsis, and both have a role in the language. But let it be recognized that only explicit elucidation of the hidden ellipsis gives a complete statement, just as explicit elucidation of all places in a bridi place structure makes a bridi more complete. This proposal was the first solution we came up with, and in analyzing it, we realized that it entailed other requirements in the language, including the only grammar change in the entire proposed solution. That change is discussed in message 3. ---- lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbab@snark.thyrsus.com