Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110092030.AA07483@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Wed Oct 9 20:30:42 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 duplications X-To: gilson%61510.decnet%CCF1.NRL.NAVY.MIL@mitvma.mit.edu X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Ken Taylor , List Reader In-Reply-To: "61510::GILSON"'s message of Wed, 9 Oct 1991 14:51:00 EDT <9110091905.AA07064@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 9 20:30:42 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN > cliva x1 leaves x2 via route x3 by means x4 (no destination) > klama x1 comes/goes to x2 from x3 via route x4 by means x5 Seems to me that with "zo'e" and the fact that the last places can be eliminated (if I remember the rules right) you really don't _need_ these nearly synonymous gismu. What, for example, is the distinction between "x1 cliva x2 x3 x4" and "x1 klama zo'e x2 x3 x4"? This is a cultural misunderstanding. In lojban, the meanings of every word _include_ the meanings of _every_ place structure. Thus, x1 klama zo'e x2 x3 x4 specifically includes the notion of a destination, only it is not being mentioned. On the other hand, x1 cliva x2 x3 x4 completely lacks that notion. The word "klama" is not "coming/going", although we often tend to abbreviate it that way. The word is the full predicate expression, including the meaning of its places. The `x1', `x2', etc are not merely to indicate what you can say without using a preposition; they are parts of the meaning of the word. Perhaps a different notation for the definition will help clarify this: `klama' means comes/goes Here the elements in angle brackets are metasyntactic variables that you fill in. Yet another notation: `klama' means Comer-goer comes/goes to-destination from-location along-path using-means, where the speaker specifes comer-goer as..., destination as..., etc. In a language that uses prepositional operators and other such mechanisms, the meaning of an expression is changed by adding new places to a verb. Using the lojban meaning of predicate, the predicate in the English sentence I go to the market from home. is completely different from the predicate in I go to the market. even though most of the words are the same. In neither example is the predicate the word `go'. In the first example, the predicate is Comer-goer goes to-destination from-location which is a relation among _three_ states/events/processes in the universe. In the second example, the predicate is Comer-goer goes to-destination which is a relation among only _two_ states/events/processes in the universe. In lojban, when different gismu are used for the two sentences, there is no suggestion that the second sentence is `less complete' or `less precise' for lacking a `from-location'. In the examples, the second sentence is 100% complete; it is talking about a circumstance in the universe without a `from-location'. On the other hand if you say in lojban, mi klama le zarci I come/go (or went or will come or go) to the (specific) market/store (I have in mind) from somewhere unspecified along an unspecified route using an unspecifed means. you are making an incompletely specified statement---you can do this, but the expression shouts its incompleteness. It may be that humans cannot learn to think in lojban; maybe humans will always think of "x1 cliva x2 x3 x4" as an equivalent to "x1 klama zo'e x2 x3 x4". I don't know what to expect. This is another area of experiment. 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)