From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Fri Nov 1 20:09:54 1991 Return-Path: Date: Fri Nov 1 20:09:54 1991 Message-Id: <9111010049.AA10489@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!USL.USL.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!usl!protin Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!USL.USL.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!usl!protin Subject: Re: Lojban duplications X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO Folks, When John Cowan said on 11 Oct 91 (with quotes from Jimc): >> Is it our current doctrine that, for each predicate, besides the >> numbered places, the predicate relation includes every case >> whether or not specified by words? In other words, every bridi >> includes a (often unspecified, likely useless in practice, but >> doctrinally important) tense, speaker, listener, language of >> expression, cause (4 kinds), consequence (4 kinds), exemplar, etc. etc. >> ad infinitum? Note that fi'o can make a case out >> of every selbri in the language, so "ad infinitum" is to be taken >> literally. > > It is Even So, ya sidi. I was pleased. First, because this is how I viewed it. BUT equally important is the hole that this blows in the "klama" vs. "litru" vs. "cliva" distinction-by-virtue-of-fewer-places argument. "Litru" will always have a destination place even if it is not numbered/reserved. Jimc offers this bandaid: > Here's a compromise: each predicate has a list of essential places, > and every instance has all these places whether or not specified by > words. But only some of them are numbered; the rest are served by > BAI/PU/KI'O. .... Unlisted BAI's if present would be interpreted > similar to a restrictive subordinate clause on the bridi, not as an > actual part of the relation. .... WHOA!. as I compose this reply I find more merit here than when I decided to reply .... While I will accept that some of the add-on-places are really restrictive clauses, I am not receptive to a limted, bounded, definitive list other than the numbered places. My understanding of lojban/Loglan NEVER had this hangup about unfilled places. The planets had an origin and given sufficient time they will have a destination and they will get from the former to the later via some path. In general, when discussing the motion of the planets, it is unimportant to consider those end points. Thus, we do not mention them. They exist. We can talk about them. I don't mention them because they are mostly a distraction. I do not deny their existance. And I do not expect you to wonder about them. I do not expect you to ponder or be otherwise consumed with any places that I left unfilled. If elipsing a place of a gismu is making some claim about its existance, then we need a few place holders: 1) one that denies the existance, 2) one that claims the existance is irrelevant, 3) one that makes no claim at all about the existance. Until Lojban Central issues a directive to the contrary, I want you all to know that when I leave a place empty I make no claim about that empty place except that I saw no reason to include it. You are not free to assume that there is even some unnamed thing in that place. When I say: mi klama I am not even admitting to having a destination! Obviously I will wind up somewhere, but that is not to say that that final destination was my intention when I began or even that I had an intended destination or if I had some intended destination, that I ever reached it. In fact, "klama" will undoubtedly say both more and less than I wanted but it will have to do as a best approximation. I can not count on useful communication when everything I want to express requires the creation of a new unique word to express this new unique idea. I expect that we will all have to use words as idealized approximations to what we want to represent. Since obviously everything that moves had an origin and ultimately has a destination (given suffcient time) then we do not seem to need "litru". I really do not need to get rid of "litru". It uses up gismu space to provide a shortened representation when I wish to disregard the end points, the second and third arguments of "klama". I can even accept "cliva". BUT I only accept them as full synonyms: "litru" is "klama" with x2 & x3 permantently elipsed and x4 & x5 shifted into places 2 & 3. Similarly for "cliva". The distinction that others claim to see, strikes me as the kind of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that I want to leave behind as I convert to lojban. Maybe there are better examples for this debate. Maybe, this triple is a red herring. What are some of the other examples of relations that are (supposedly) different because of the number of places? (While I may yet recognize a situtation where the difference is relevant, I doubt that I will ever see "litru", "cliva", and "klama" as other than synonyms.) And who is this "Haldane in exile" (Bob Slaughter) that spouts: > Then obviously you haven't learned to *think* in lojban. :) Smart enough to include an almost smiley (make it bigger next time like :-) or :^) or ;-> so we are sure that is what you are doing) but not smart enough to break lines into reasonable sized pieces. > Perhaps the phrase "is not fully completed" instead of "incomplete" > might make more sense here. You may not yearn for them, but you > know there are unanswered items, because the "hooks" are far more > explicit in lojban than English. What hooks in English? > The unladen "hooks" are _meant_ to be filled, or questioned. No! No! No! They are not meant to be filled in. And when I do not fill them in, I do not usually expect you to inquire. I expect that that information would be wasteful if included. You will inquire only if differ with me on that assessment > Lojban is a dialog-based langauge, rather than a monolog-based > language like Standard Written English. I can see where a speaker > of English "sees" "I come" as a fullty completed sentence with no > unknown information, but all speakers will know the speaker of > "mi klama" could've said something but *conscoiusly didn't*. > Hmmm, imagine what that means for Lojbanistani politicians..... I try not to associate with speackers of any language that ASSUME that any sentence is so complete that there is not some unarticulated information. "mi klama" can stand as is even though there is a lot of unarticulated information. I hope not to associate with any fool that imagines providing an origin, a destination, a route, and a means to "mi klama" will express all there is to know about the event. thank you all, Art Arthur Protin The views expressed are strictly those of the author and are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.