Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Sun, 8 Mar 92 18:43 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA16642; Sun, 8 Mar 92 18:17:33 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA23646; Sun, 8 Mar 92 15:32:21 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA05746; Sun, 8 Mar 92 15:32:30 EST Message-Id: <9203082032.AA05746@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 1794; Sun, 08 Mar 92 15:30:24 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 0273; Sun, 08 Mar 92 15:29:57 EST Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 17:49:05 GMT Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: More thoughts on iBAIbo X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sun Mar 8 18:43:50 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Thanks, lojbab, for putting your position on iBAIbo. As you say, it is a matter of teaching - except that I belive that this is an inconsistency that is going to haunt us. I now believe that it is .iCAbo that is inconsistent. Here is the analysis I have gone through this matter, mostly to get clear in my own mind. Others may find it useful - or be able to correct it. Some background - how I perceived the issue =========================================== When I came back into Lojban, I was working on my memories of Loglan, and whatever I could glean from the JL's and bits of textbook I had managed to find. In particular I had no cmavyste. I observed the derivation in the textbook that went in essence .i bale fasnu mi gleki .i baku mi gleki .i mi ba gleki and though it very elegant and mnemonic. I was surprised when I first came across "sepu'a" in a translation, because it seemed the wrong way round - I made the Zipfian assumption that "to please" would be the basic form and "pleased by" a converted form. Further, I expected a parallel between pluka da and pu'a da instead of which the parallel is between pluka fada and pu'a da Once I got the full cmavyste (logdata3) off the PLS, I realised how BAI and their conversions were derived and, though I still felt a little uncomfortable with it, accepted it as quite elegant, and memorable once you understood it. I had quite a lot of trouble getting fixed in my head the pairs "ri'a" and "seri'a" etc - for a while (still sometimes) I have to go back to the gismu to work them out. When I came across "bo", it was as the short scope tanru link ("ci" in Loglan), and I was happy with this. But then I found it odd that it had quite a different use in ".ibabo" etc, where it looks more like a separator or terminator than a close link. I still think that it is nothing more than an overloading of a structural cmavo with two quite distinct functions, rather as "ku" was formerly overloaded: but here it was allowed because it is grammatically unambiguous, as "ku" wasn't. Unfortunately, for me, the two functions are not at all parallel. But I accepted ".ibabo" - realised that it was sort of synonymous with ".ibaku" (not quite synonymous because the implied reference point for the "after" is different, but near enough). Then I met ".iseni'ibo" and got in a hell of a confused mess trying to make it out. As I suggested in my previous mail, logically it had to mean "because", not "therefore" as people were using it. Now Lojbab has come back and said, yes, it is inconsistent, but "therefore" is what it means, because that's what JCB's version did, and because that's what we've got used to. I thought there was still a problem with other conversions ("teka'a" etc), and set about analysing the matter to try and prove this. I have now come to the following conclusions: ".iseni'ibo" works very nicely, and makes me happier about "bo" It is ".ibabo" that is inconsistent and should really be changed, because it will bite us with every new generation of inquisitive learners. My argument is that I can see "bo" as a link - between the BAI and the sentence. ".iseni'ibo bu'a" (is there a non-designating bridi anaphora? This is really just a selbri, I think) means *roughly* the same as ".iseni'ilenu bu'a" except of course that it asserts the bu'a as well. This makes me quite happy (.iseri'abo mi gleki) and lets me see how to use other BAI, including conversion, in this context: ko'a litru ca'o piro le djedi .iseka'abo ko'a co'a gleki sipna "They travelled the whole day. When they got there (i.e. with destination the following) they fell asleep, happy." [Note that "seka'alenu ko'a co'a gleki sipna" would not assert that the did fall asleep, just that that was their destination) It leaves slightly open the meaning of : does "mi ri'a gleki" correspond to ".iri'aku mi gleki" - I am causedly happy or ".iri'abo mi gleki" - I am causingly happy? I think you can make a case for either - I slightly favour the first, since "ri'aku" is part of the bridi, whereas "ri'abo" is something outside the bridi. However, this analysis *does not* work for ".ibabo" I think we should change it. (Note that for most purposes ".ibaku" will do for a current ".ibabo"). ta'o, I've thought up some examples of other BAI that rather tickle me. eg: mi clupa blokla la barbeidos. .i seta'aku mi na'e gleki .i caviri mi lifri la'ede'e .iseki'ubo mi teta'a je'a gleki I loop boat-went to Barbados. Going-to I was un- happy. At-there I experienced what-follows. Therefore I coming-from-ly indeed happy. kolin c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk