From cbmvax!uunet!grebyn!lojbab Sat Feb 8 03:28:34 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Sat, 8 Feb 92 03:28 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA19352; Fri, 7 Feb 92 22:26:30 EST Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA17818; Fri, 7 Feb 92 21:41:20 -0500 Received: from grebyn.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL (queueing-rmail) id 210817.1138; Fri, 7 Feb 1992 21:08:17 EST Received: by grebyn.com (5.57/smail2.3/07-01-87) id AA00770; Fri, 7 Feb 92 17:40:35 -0500 Received: by daily.grebyn.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/02.16.86-kan-10.20.91) id AA21952; Fri, 7 Feb 92 17:48:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 92 17:48:33 -0500 From: cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab (Logical Language Group) Message-Id: <9202072248.AA21952@daily.grebyn.com> To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, jimc@math.ucla.edu, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au Subject: dikyjvo -response to jimc Status: RO Nick: >What Jimc did which is *substantially* important is the {belenu} >analysis, of {ri'a} and so forth which, at least for {ri'a}, has a very >well def'd place struct. When applied to other gismu, as I pointed out, >you get replication and other such complications. And because the >transformational mechanism of {belenu} dikyjvo is unique to Lojban, this >flavour can be said to be non-descriptive of NLs, but rooted probably in >JCB's usage. It had to be pointed out to me before I could run with it. >And the prescription doesn't fit everything I want to say. But >precisely because its place structs are well def'd, this flavour of >dikyjvo is the most important and productive, as well as the most alien. jimc: >That's a real interesting comment. It is certainly true that the >abstract dikyjvo make the most words, the most useful words, and the >ones which are most prolix when written out in full. Having been close >to the topic for a long time, I hadn't realized, but Nick is quite >correct that this form is not seen in any of the natural languages that >I know. Of course that isn't saying much. Rather than saying >descriptively that JCB used this form, I would say that JCB saw >potentially frequent use (in texts to be written in the future) of such >abstractions, particularly with cleft places, and he developed an >informal procedure to create lujvo for them. I then reverse- engineered >that procedure. First of all, since JCB's lujvo-making was SO atrociously malglico, I am suspicious of any langauge design concept based on such analysis. Since jimc then refined his ideas based on his own usage, which was never accepted as correct and/or understandable Loglan by anyone but him - even WITH his explanations, his refinement is equally suspect. I want to wait until we have lujvo made by many speakers, including non-English natives, before I presume to make rules that hint at prescription. Until then, I'll accept a lack of "empowerment" feelings in favor of people relying on their own intuition of what other people will understand, their non-analytical generalizations from what other people do, and most important, what they bring to Lojban from their own natural language. Second of all, I think the belenu analysis is simply flawed. Both JCB was flawed in buiding such a pattern and jimc was flawed in assuming it based on JCB. I think that belenu lujvo are 'properly' built as "nunco'ebroda, with Zipfean considerations allowing the nu to be left out for common concepts when the x1 of the modifier term co'e isn't going to be plausible as a most useful form. The Lojban example I will cite is the never questioned until this week "le'avla" which is really either nunlebna valsi, or selyle'a valsi, lujvo-ized with the cmavo omitted either by intent or error. Most would now choose the latter origin as a better word basis (selyle'avla?), but I suspect that my thought process when coining it was "borrowing? - nah we aren't going to give it back - taking! nunlebna. But I can shorten this from nunle'akemvla to the more ambiguous nunle'avla to le'avla which is a short enough word for a basic Lojban concept, and I can't see any good use for taker-word." I don't know if this WAS my thought process, but it seems more plausible and more like the way I want people to think about lujvo-making, than the rote formula of "belenu". (Will le'avla change to the longer but more accurate se-based word - who knows. I may put both in the dictionary and find out.) >Key point: maybe something easy can be done so a speaker can indicate >which interpretation he wants for cevrirni. But before such a mechanism >can be sought, the participants have to agree that dikyjvo are a Good >Idea, i.e. that it's worth searching for the resolution mechanism. Right. And I don't agree. Lojban tanru are ambiguous by intent, and Lojban lujvo are an embodiment and rigidification of tanru, with some simplifying rules thrown in recognizing natural linguistic processes. I want the language to be a creative endeavor, not a mechanical one, during its formative years. I have no doubt that in any case, people will learn to make lujvo, and learn to make them quickly and effectively, without rules. After all every one of us has done so. A lujvo that isn't understood by the listener doesn't survive, or gets critiqued in countless Wallops and counter Wallops %^) >As to statistics, lujvo can only be counted after the dikyjvo rules are >irrevocably in place, so it's hopeless to base the original rules on >statistics. We have to "bootstrap" it just as JCB did: What will >people most likely want to say? How can we make it easy for them? What >place structures and combining rules will coherently generate large >numbers of useful lujvo? The first sentence of course assumes that we want dikyjvo rules. If you want to do it as JCB did then don't use dikyjvo, use malglico. He made words into lujvo or gismu theoretically on a word-frequency basis (.ianai) - which is of course why billiards and olive made his gismu list. Really he started with good intentions and then got lazy and idiosyncratic. I favor figuring out what people are most likely to say - a Lojban Eaton project is a sure-fire necessity for the next phase of the project, perhaps also using more up-to-date word frequency studies from more variety of languages. The only way to make these words avaliable "easily" to lo'e lojbo is by making them for him. Most people are waiting for a dictionary simply because they don't WANT to make up words, not because of an empowering thing. They want a prescription, and I refuse to give them one. (As much as possible, as time goes on, I intend to work for more than one Lojban word for as many English words as possible, so people HAVE to think about what they want to say in Lojbanic, and not English-equivalent or rote process terms and make a choice. Because ONLY if we do so, will Lojban break free of English.) Well, maybe the masses will learn some of this by rote rules, but the poets that set the examples and teach the language had better be more creative and thoughtful than that. I admire Nick for his efforts, AND his recognition of the limits of dikyjvo - EARLY. [By the way - this is not to say that the flawed belenu 'guideline' is 'wrong' or non-useful - merely that I don;t want to see it taught as anything even hinting at a prescription. ] lojbab