Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110120225.AA08656@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Sat Oct 12 00:53:00 1991 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!usl!usl!protin Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!usl!usl!protin Subject: Re: lojban predicates X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Ken Taylor , List Reader Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Oct 12 00:53:00 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Folks, I hate to have to say this so strongly, (and Bob please don't be offended,) BUT I find to be totally without merit, bogus, the comments offered in > Message-Id: <9110092028.AA18364@Princeton.EDU> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 16:21:07 EDT > From: bob%GNU.AI.MIT.EDU@pucc.Princeton.EDU where Bob says: > Here is a way to think about lojban predicates in contrast to English > verbs. > > In the written language of arithmetic, we write expressions such as > the following: > > 2 + 2 > > In this example, the plus-sign is the equivalent of a lojban gismu. > > If I write > > 2 + > > you know there is something missing...you yearn for another number, to > complete the expression. > > The same with a lojban expression: > > mi klama > I come/go > > is incomplete. In lojban, you yearn for a destination, departure, > path, and means. [rest deleted for brevity] While I can easily accept that we need a far different model to think about lojban than the one we use for thinking about English, I reject any suggestion that mi klama is in any way incomplete. The image that I construct in my mind is small corresponding to the small amount of data provided, and it has "hooks" where I might attach additional data like the destination. But I do not yearn for the elipsed members of the relation any more than I would for any other piece of the whole picture (like why do you go or why do you think that I care that you go). The use of "klama" implies that there is some destination but the importance of that data is clearly unspecified and will probably be given a default importance of "nearly nil". Other dialog/monolog is required to elevate that "slot" to any greater promenense (I hope I spelled that right, I am on a new system and I have not yet found all the good tools). If that piece of the whole picture becomes both important and unspecified, I will inquire as I would for any other data I need to satisfy my view of that picture. I see no reason to provide any members of any relation (predicate) that are not relavent to the discourse. That the provided members can/do have the designated role in some instance of the relation is all that the language can express. We might, with sufficient dialog and experience, be relatively certain that we know exactly which instance is being described, but there can be no guarentees. (This is not a property of just lojban but of human communication in general.) (This diverges from the point, so I will pause here.) (with the brief summary:) Say everything that is important to the dialog and nothing else! thank you all, Art Protin Arthur Protin The views expressed are strictly those of the author and are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.