Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110100200.AA16933@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Thu Oct 10 00:34:00 1991 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!nsn Subject: Miscellanea X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Cc: nsn@ee.mu.oz.au To: John Cowan , Ken Taylor , List Reader Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 10 00:34:00 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN A few miscellaneous points here: >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1991 09:48:27 -0700 >From: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU >Subject: Re: response #1 to Jim Carter >Are you sure? I had a dialog with John Cowan where the rule came out >like this: when a modal operator BAI is derived from a gismu BRODA, >the meaning is (at least similar to) that the tagged sumti or _first_ >connected sentence is considered to be in x1 of BRODA (after >conversion), and the main phrase or _second_ connected sentence is in >x2. You know, I was waiting for jimc to come up with dikni cmavo. I formulated the above rule in May, but abandoned it because it doesn't work with most BAI. For example, {bau}. {mi sanga bau la lojban} is not: {la lojban cu bangu lenu mi sanga}, because that's not the interpretation of the x2 of {bangu}. It's more like {la lojban cu bangu srana lenu mi sanga}, and if you want more specificity, {la lojban cu bangu je velsku lenu mi sanga}. And {bau} is only the mildest of such interpretables. No, let's keep BAI nice and vague for now. >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1991 22:59:38 -0400 >From: Logical Language Group >Subject: response to jimc on my response#2 (lujvo-making) Are we *still* talking on this subject? The both of you should try making more lujvo in the dikyjvo style, and see where it gets you. I've found it to be very often helpful, but seldom decisive. It at least allows a start. But things like whether you elide a place or not - that's a dictionary issue. Still, I can't tell you how comforting a dikni -{ri'a} compound can be. Though there is a catch: zmari'a: x1 causes that x2 is more than x3 by std x4 by amt x5. Pushdown the places of zmadu. Cf. English: (x1) increases (x2). basri'a: x1 causes that x2 replaces x3. Again pushdown. basri'a is a translation of (animate agent) replaces (something1) by (some- thing2). But something1 corresponds to x3 above, and something2 to x2. The places come out jumbled. This is because (and this is more obvious in Esp), when we put a transitive verb into a factitive (eat - feed; replace - replace by) we often make the direct object of the original verb the direct object of the new verb (the transformation away from the English dative, as in to feed X Y, can conceal this). But there are no transitives in lojban; and a uniform interpretation of such compounds is not logical perversion, it is internal consistency. Why should we have one rule for zmadu and another for basti? If things get too hairy, use sel- -ri'a: selbasri'a: x1 causes that x2 be replaced by x3. -ri'a is becoming a monomania of mine, but then, the ambiguity between the two such interpretations of the corresponding -ig in Esp (does mangxigi mean to make someone eat or be eaten?) make me wish for Lojban to do better. That said, one shouldn't police tanru too much, though a more dikni tanru (i.e. think of {je} between the component words, if possible) is polite. Man with his hands in his pockets: daski nenri se xance - suggests primarily (someone with hands) inside a pocket. seke daski nenri xance, someone with (pocket inside hands), is nicer. But when the crunch comes to the bite (or whatever), you can't be dikni all the time. Message-Id: <9110091611.AA01189@BU.EDU> Date: 9 Oct 91 12:02:00 EDT From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Settling disagreements on Lojban meanings "Mark E. Shoulson" writes: > ... Nick, Lojbab, and I have recently (off-line) had a similar >discussion wrt the Lojban attitudinal "kau", which indicates knowledge. I >felt that using it within a subordinate clause it still refers to the >speaker, not the actor in the clause, or at least that it was very unclear. >Bob and Nick felt that it referred to the actor in the clause (at least in >the case we were dealing with, where the sentence was something like "he >knew that something (known!) ...") Actually, when {kau} was proposed, I said to Bob it should not be UI for this reason. I think my interpretation is more useful: it makes a full analogy between mi djuno ledu'u do klama dakau do djuno ledu'u do klama dakau du'u klama dakau I know the sentence: you're going to X, for some known X You know the sentence: you're going to X, for some known X Sentence: you're going to X, for some known X where the sentence might be said to be seen in some absolute form, a phrase in a PROLOG program. All three refer to an instantiation of X in GOES(you,X). Let the instantiation of X be y. Then GOES(you,y) is in my databank GOES(you,y) is in your databank GOES(you,y). The UI-ist interpretation Mark uses has GOES(you,y) is in my databank GOES(you,X) is in your databank; GOES(you,y) is in my databank GOES(you,X), where GOES(you,y) is in my databank which I don't find as useful. Bruce asks who decides, and I'm not sure. As for parser probs, apart from frequent misorderings of NAhE and SE (*{se to'e catra} instead of {to'e se catra}), analogies drawn where the parser hasn't allowed them yet (*{ka'enai}, by analogy with {punai}, {na'onai}, {fa'anai}), and more than one token of lookahead, I parse alright. There is nothing simpler than simple sentences in Lojban; it's the heavier transformations that make for error. Of course, analogy is a mighty strong force, and I think after the five year stability period, a form like {ka'enai} will have ended up in the vocab of many Lojbanists. And when the language really takes off (twenty years, if ever), I doubt any BNF will quite tie it down. Message-Id: From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@uunet.UU.NET (John Cowan) Subject: Re: Canadean and Schklorpya To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu (conlang) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:45:25 EDT Quoth John, on another forum: >la ranld. heil. evnz. cusku di'e >(Ronald Hale-Evans writes:) >> 1. ownership (my car) > Lojban "po", although "po" does not entail ownership, > more like (alienable) possession or even just specificity > (the whole concept of "ownership" is culturally bound) >> 2. intrinsic (my arm) > Lojban "po'e" (inalienable possession) >> 3. creation/origin (my story) > Lojban uses place structures ("a story created-by me") Also {ra'i}, {fi'e}, {teka'a}, {vebe'i}... >> 4. dwelling (my city) > Lojban "po" I do not like this. {pe}, at least. Possibly {pa'u} >> 5. membership (my club) > Lojban "po" Ditto. >> 6. familial (my uncle) > Lojban uses place structures (X is-an-uncle-of me) >> 7. role (my friend) > Lojban "po" Usually place structures do the trick anyway, don't they? I'd still prefer {pe}. >> 8. class (my species) > Lojban uses place structures Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 14:31:14 EDT From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Aorist > la sofis. djuno le nu za'a la .artr. klaku > Sophy knows the event-of [I observe it!] Arthur weeps > >So by the usage suggested by Bob and Nick, this observation would likely >apply to *Sophy*, not to the speaker. Yeah, and I can tell you why: I'm not really distinguishing bewteen du'u (sentence), and la'elu (quote). So for {djuno ledu'u za'a la .artr. klaku}, with all known things being sentences, at least in my idiolect, yes, I'd feel more comfortable with that interpretation. Bit wary of {nu}, but. Does {nu} include {du'u}? I certainly don't think it includes {ni}. Offline, Jamie Bechtel had a translation where a path was said to be longer than {lenu mi klama ca pano djedi}. longer than the event: I walk for ten days? Surely longer than the amount: I walk for ten days, {leni klama}. >you should realize that >"sei" has a terminator "se'u", which may not be elidable. Actually, I'm told {sei} was invented specifically for easy elision of {se'u} - that's why SEI clauses are only SOV. I can see little distinction between TO clauses (parenthetical) and SEI ("metalinguistic"). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nick S. Nicholas, "Rode like foam on the river of pity Depts. of CompSci & ElecEng, Turned its tide to strength University of Melbourne, Australia. Healed the hole that ripped in living" nsn@{munagin.ee|mullauna.cs}.mu.oz.au - S. Vega, Book Of Dreams _______________________________________________________________________________