Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110151637.AA23893@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Tue Oct 15 16:08:22 1991 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!bob Sender: Lojban list Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was bob@GRACKLE.STOCKBRIDGE.MA.US From: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!bob Subject: lojban predicates X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Cc: bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us To: John Cowan , Ken Taylor In-Reply-To: usl!usl!protin%ATT.ATT.COM@mitvma.mit.edu's message of Fri, 11 Oct 1991 18:51:00 EDT <9110120225.AA16416@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 15 16:08:22 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Recently, I suggested that > mi klama > I come/go > > is incomplete. In lojban, you yearn for a destination, departure, > path, and means. Arthur Protin disagrees: 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). But you ought to yearn! This is an advantage of lojban over English. A gismu states a relationship among various entities. `klama' states a relationship among: A sentence using `klama' is about these five entitites. An unspoken entity is still there, even if unspoken. This characteristic of lojban is completely different from English, in which verbs on their own usually specify a smaller relationship that is extended by the use of helper words, such as `to', `from', `along', `by means of'. Perhaps our English inspired way of writing gismu definitions is misleading. Here is how `klama' is defined in the current word list; klama kla come x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3 via x4 using means/vehicle x5 This form suggests that `klama' means `comes/goes'. But consider this alternative form of definition: klama kla x1: x2: x3: x4: x5: In this form of the definition, the word (by which I mean, the five letters) `klama' is *not* itself defined on its own at all! Here you can see that the word `klama' is a *label* for a relationship among five entities. This form of the definition enables you to see that mi klama le zarci le zdani le lalxu le karce is translated as x1: comers/goers that are specified as I or we gismu: are in a relationship with x2: a destination I have in mind, the market, x3: a departure-location I have in mind, the house, x4: a route I have in mind, the lake, x5: a means I have in mind, the car. This translation reminds us that *every* gismu can be translated as `is/are in a relationship with'. What changes when you change words is not that phrase, but the values of the sumti with which the gismu is associated. For example, from the words: skori sor ko'i sko x1: x2: trati x1: x2: bloti lot lo'i blo x1: x2: we can construct the following sentence; le skori cu trati le bloti This translates to: x1: taut/tense/strained-entity I have in mind, the rope gismu: is in a relationship with x2: a direction-of-tautness I have in mind, the boat. Again notice that the gismu `trati' is itself translated by the phrase `is in a relationship with'. This way of thinking about how the lojban sentence works is un-English. Now, to return to Arthur Protin's comments regarding the sentence mi klama without the other places specified. Arthur says: 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 prominence. 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. As far as I can see, Arthur is applying English language thinking unnecessarily to the lojban. It may be that the unspecified places are unimportant--I am not contesting that. What I am arguing is that the lojban notion of `klama' is always about a relationship among five entities. I translate mi klama as x1: comers/goers that are specified as I or we gismu: are in a relationship with x2: a destination, unspecified, x3: a departure-location, unspecified, x4: a route, unspecified, x5: a means, unspecified. When you translate `mi klama' like this, you certainly yearn to fill in the unspecified slots. Perhaps `yearn' is too strong a word. After all, if the speaker does not specify the place, he or she is suggesting it is not important; and perhaps you don't think it important either. So you do not yearn very strongly. But I think a fluent lojban hearer will be *aware* that such a sentence contains unspecified places. So what is the use of marking an unspecified place with "zo'e", which is the elliptical/unspecified pro-sumti cmavo? To me, a speaker who says mi klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e is telling me that he or she is intentionally leaving those spaces unspecified. The speaker is making a formal claim that the information is not important to me--telling me that the speaker has not forgot the other places but is consciously leaving it out. On being asked how much his yacht cost, J. P. Morgan is said to have answered: "If you have to ask, you cannot afford it" Suppose you were selling such a yacht. The gismu relating the entitites: price, the thing with the price, the buyer and the seller is: jdima dim di'a x1: x2: x3: x4: As a salesman, you could say: zo'e jdima le bloti la morgan. mi which translates as x1: price/cost, overtly unspecified, gismu: is in a relationship with x2: a priced entity, that I have in mind, a specific boat, x3: a buyer, that I have in mind, Mr. Morgan, x4: a price-setter, that I have in mind, specificly, me or us. What about modal operators in the BAI lexeme? Should a hearer yearn for additional information that might be spoken using a modal operator? My answer is "sometimes". A well designed gismu relates all the entities about which you usually desired information. If the gismu does relate all the regularly desired places, then it needs to be redefined to do so. But the regularly supplied information may be insufficient. Why am I going to market? mi klama le zarci mu'i le li'i xagji is translated as x1: comers/goers that are specified as I or we gismu: are in a relationship with x2: a destination I have in mind, the market, x3: a departure-location, unspecified, x4: a route, unspecified, x5: a means, unspecified. modal operator: because of motive x-extra: a specfic experience I have in mind, hunger. Food for thought? (Ha! I won`t translate that. But here are gismu: :-) cidja dja x1: x2: sidbo sib si'o x1: x2: x3: pensi pen pei x1: x2: jinvi jiv ji'i x1: x2: Robert J. Chassell bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Rattlesnake Mountain Road (413) 298-4725 or (617) 253-8568 or Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (617) 876-3296 (for messages)