Return-Path: Message-Id: Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 02:41 EDT From: lojbab (Bob LeChevalier) To: lojban-list Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jun 11 02:42:15 1991 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab Subject: The end of an evolution - equality for tagged sumti 3rd of 6 related messages 3. There is an aspect of cleft place structures that is more tricky to solve than merely how to unambiguously extract and sumti raise, whether by explicitly tagged sumti-raising, or by lexeme BAI. This question broadens to cover all use of abstractions in Lojban sentences. With uncleft place structures such as the one in John Cowan's example from message 1: lenu mi cinta cu galfi le bitmu The event-of (I paint) modifies the wall tu'a mi galfi le bitmu [The abstraction-of] I [doing something] modifies the wall. gau mi galfi le bitmu with-agent me (some-x1-event-unspecified) modifies the wall how do you talk about the agent ("mi" in this case). "le galfi" is the event, not the agent. No amount of fiddling with "tu'a" will solve the problem, because as noted in message 2, sumti-raising does not convey the exact semantic role of the raised sumti in the bridi relation. In addition, there has been up to now no method of turning a tagged sumti place into a description. John Cowan has written up such a proposal, which requires a grammar change, in the style of other grammar changes that have been proposed. As baseline changes they require this more formal writeup to be properly considered. Following is the original writeup prepared by John Cowan, which is followed by discussion and some alternative versions that others have preferred. Your opinion is wanted. Tech Fix 28 (grammar change): CURRENT LANGUAGE: Official doctrine states that the sumti tcita of a bridi constitute nonstandard places which are co-equal with the regular numbered places. However, there is no way to make these places the subject of a description by moving them into a numbered (specifically, the x1) place. PROPOSED CHANGE: Add JAI+tag as the equivalent of a SE conversion. (JAI is a new selma'o.) This is usable only on selbri, not in the other places where SE is legal. The result is that the tcita sumti comes to occupy the x1 place, and the original x1-x5 places are "pushed down" to x2-x6. RATIONALE: It is currently messy to say "the time of my going to the store"; this looks like an abstraction, but does not match any existing abstractor. It can be handled quite neatly with: le jai ca klama be mi bei le zarci the (thing which is) simultaneous-with going by me to the store In particular, when a place is meant to be an abstract sumti, and a concrete sumti appears ("sumti raising"), these JAI-based descriptors provide sumti access to modal places as well as standard ones. This clearly brings the tagged 'modal sumti' into full equivalence with the place structure sumti. However, Athelstan noted that the change as worded causes difficulty in pedagogy. As a result, two alternatives to the above 'PROPOSED CHANGE' have been formed. These each address a separate difficulty with the wording of John's proposal. A third alternative is provided for comment; it is a minor modification of either of the other two. a) Alternative #1 >Add JAI+tag as the equivalent of a SE conversion. ... --------------------------------- Athelstan noted that the definition of a SE conversion involves an exchange of sumti. So it is misleading to call this an 'equivalent' of SE. New Lojbanists taught the more direct conversions will be confused when we tell them that not all conversions are the same. So at the very least, we would need to change this to: Add JAI+tag as another kind of conversion besides SE. (JAI is a new selma'o.) This is usable only on selbri, not in the other places where SE is legal. The result is that the tcita sumti comes to occupy the x1 place, and the original x1-x5 places are "pushed down" to x2-x6. But he further noted that the proposal (separated from an actual formal grammar change list) supports not only description use JAI+tag, but also main selbri use JAI+tag. Having two different methods of reordering the places in conversion, depending on what is being stuck up front, does not lead to exact equivalence between the places, and might cause confusion in learners: mi klama le zarci ca ti I go to the market at-the-time-of this-point I go to the store at this point (in time). is being taught as equivalent to mi klama be le zarci bei ca ti Hence the easy formation of a description by replacing "mi" with "le" le klama be le zarci bei ca ti The go-er to the market at-the-time-of this-point The go-er to the store at this point (in time). If JAI+tag is the equivalent of SE in non-description selbri like this, it will also work the same way: ti jai ca klama mi le zarci This is-the-time-of going by me to the market. le jai ca klama be mi bei le zarci the-time-of going by me to the market. But if we are sumti-raising around a cleft place structure problem, and you are trying to replace the event by the agent, confusion will reign gau mi galfi le bitmu with-agent me (some-x1-event-unspecified) modifies the wall must become as a description le jai gau galfi be fi le bitmu -- The actor-in modifying the wall. Without the "fi", the wall is the former first place of galfi, the event that modifies, which is not what is intended. There is a subtle aspect of this proposal that must be explored openly. At one point it was proposed to JCB that all SE conversions renumber the place structures in this way, by pushing them down. He rejected this. Our standard in designing Lojban has been to have a good linguistic reason for any deviations from JCB's Loglan policies. I do not support any change in this standard. In any case, I doubt that it would be seriously considered to make all conversions push-down at this late stage. A second problem (which I can't confirm since I haven't seen John's formal grammar implementation) is that the two conversions may interact leading to strange results. Neither conversion is commutative, and each varies from that state in a different way. Thus the conversion "sete" results in the order (with numbering based on the original place structure) of x2 [sete selbri] x3 x1 (x4 x5 ...) Calculating such compounded conversions is complicated and unnecessary because the numbering tags of selma'o FA allow any arrangement to be specified overtly. The only feature of SE conversion not obtainable with FA is the specification of the x1 place accessible from a description. Compound conversions don't affect this specification, hence are irrelevant. But with two different kinds of conversion, there is a reason for compounding. Given a SE converted selbri, you want to pull out the time of that relation into a description. If you don't unconvert first, the place numbering gets really strange. And different from that if you have a 'jai+tag' version of a selbri and try to convert IT using SE. These separately are all weak arguments but together justify Athelstan's position that 'jai+tag conversion' should indeed be identical with SE conversion, including the exchange of sumti. But what is the x1 place exchanged with when we do a 'jai+tag' conversion. Athelstan calls this an 'extradimensional place', one that lies outside the numerical sequence since a tagged sumti lies outside the numerical sequence of the place structure. To access this place in a specified description, we need an 'extradimensional' member of FA. A logical word to assign to this would be a fVV cmavo. There are none free. However, in another part of this proposal, John Cowan had proposed a different case of a word needing an fVV cmavo (see message 5). With two needs in this area, and a lot of soul-searching, I am choosing to propose grabbing "fai" and "fi'e" from GOhA (which would become "nei" and "no'a" respectively. This incidentally brings "nei" into opposition with "dei".) As I am about the only person that has memorized and used these, changing them is a lesser sin than some other choices. "fi'e" would be freed for other uses, and "fai" used as the extradimensional FA tag. Given this, the change becomes: b) Alernative #2 PROPOSED CHANGE: Add JAI+tag as another variety of SE conversion. (JAI is a new selma'o.) This is usable on selbri in descriptions or main selbri, not in the other places where SE is legal (logical connectives, modals, etc.). The result is that the tcita sumti comes to occupy the x1 place, and the original x1 place is switched by the conversion to an un-numbered place which is given the cmavo "fai" (selma'o FA). All other places numbers remain unchanged as in SE conversions. To make room for this usage, the current "fai" and "fi'e" (selma'o GOhA) are changed respectively to "nei" and "no'a" RATIONALE: It is currently messy to say "the time of my going to the store"; this looks like an abstraction, but does not match any existing abstractor. It can be handled quite neatly with: le jai ca klama be le zarci bei fai mi the (thing which is) simultaneous-with going to the store by me. In particular, when attempting to access a place that is found within the subordinate clause of an abstract sumti (accomplished using either explicit sumti raising or implicit raising using a BAI modal tag, these JAI-based descriptors provide description sumti access to the modal variety, as in: le jai gau galfi be le bitmu The actor-in modifying the wall. c) Alternative #3 This is an alternative mostly for comment. Athelstan doubts the utility of allowing 'jai+tag conversion' except in descriptions. I think they have little utility but are useful in showing the expansion and analytical transformation of the description to a standard selbri. Also, historically, if we find an option in the language, someone discovers as useful distinction for it. (Nick, go to it!) However, for consideration, either of the two proposals can be modified to: Add JAI+tag as ... SE conversion. (JAI is a new selma'o.) This is usable on selbri only in descriptions, not in other places where SE is allowed ... ---- lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbab@snark.thyrsus.com