From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Wed Jul 29 12:08:36 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 29 Jul 92 12:08 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA03454; Wed, 29 Jul 92 11:12:58 EDT Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA25630; Wed, 29 Jul 92 10:17:57 -0400 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA23611; Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:20:58 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA20951; Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:19:23 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26024; Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:07:52 -0400 Message-Id: <9207291207.AA26024@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2655; Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:07:15 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf034) id 6596; Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:07:01 EDT Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:07:25 -0500 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!viikki21.helsinki.fi!vilva Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!viikki21.helsinki.fi!VILVA Subject: RE: Response on relatives and quantifiers To: John Cowan Status: RO la kolin. cusku di'e >First, a clarification of intent. Veijo in particular seems to have >assumed that my intent was to find a way to say certain things in >Lojban. This is not so. I was analysing the existing structure of the >language, trying to understand it and see its semantics, and I came >across an area where the syntactic structure does not match what I >believe to be the *current* semantic (or logical) structure. It is >likely that my interpretation of this semantic structure is at least in >part derived from my intuitions as an English speaker; but I do my best >to avoid this. > >So I was a little hurt by Veijo's implication that I was coming from >the point of view of translation - old Loglanists will know that I have >been assiduous in questioning malglico for years. I'm sorry I gave that impression. It wasn't intentional but due to a careless choice of words. I saw your intent but my approach was based firstly on the fact that I am, as a newcomer, still struggling to express ideas and to understand ideas expressed and secondly, after all, this interplay of expression and understanding is what a language is all about. Lojban is an emerging language which still is in a state of flux in many respects. We have a relatively limited corpus of existing text which is at least partly outdated. Some of this text has been created by people at a relatively early stage in their development as Lojbanists and may contain usages which necessarily haven't been so thoroughly analyzed at the time of writing but may have been 'instinctive' choices reflecting more the linguistic background of the writer than the grammar of Lojban. When I spoke of translating I didn't mean that to be taken quite literally. What I tried to say was that when we are dialing with a completely different language like Lojban we mustn't always expect to see things expressed in an 'instinctive' way. We have a grammar which defines the framework within which we are trying to express ideas and before we modify it I think we must see whether it is possible to express the ideas we might want to express -- even in an 'alien' way. After that we must make a choice: do we accept the 'alien' way or do we modify the grammar. I think that at this stage we still have the option of specifying the way various things are expressed. Before I continue I'll withdraw the suggestion for the modification of the grammar I made in a previous posting. It is both unnecessary and partly erroneous. The correct (and presently defined) transform of lo ci le cukta pe mi is lo ci le mi cukta the three of my books which -- now that I got it figured out -- seems quite obvious. Now if we take (a) lo ci lo mi cukta = lo ci [[lo cukta] [pe mi]] how does it differ from (b) lo mi ci cukta = [lo ci cukta] [pe mi] *lo ci [cukta [pe mi]]* (Colin) (a) seems to parse the way Colin would like (b) to do (though we cannot presently have a relative hanging from the bri_string). The restriction imposed by the external quantifier in ci lo panono vi cukta selects 3 out of the 100 books which are in the vicinity but the restrictive relative in (c) lo panono vi cukta pe mi seems to do no selection in the quantified set if I have interpreted the expressed opinions correctly. So the selection must be done as follows(?) (d) lo su'o lo panono vi cukta ku ku pe mi those of the 100 nearby books which are mine which isn't any too clear. The preposed possessive cannot be used although in this case it would clarify things a lot: *lo mi [su'o] lo panono vi cukta* Things would clear up a bit and the new interpretation would match the parse in (b), if the restrictive relatives (and the corresponding preposed possessives when applicable) were to do selection -- contrary to the present praxis. The highly regular and understandable form (a) would be the more common one and (c) or its preposed possessive form would be used instead of (d) when ever required. This would also clarify the difference between restrictive and incidental relatives as the restrictives would always perform selection from the referent set whether it were quantified or not. External quantification of (c) would also be quite clear: ci [[lo panono vi cukta] [pe mi]] ci [lo mi panono vi cukta] 3 of those which are mine of the 100 nearby books lo ci lo panono vi cukta pe mi lo ci lo mi panono vi cukta the 3 which are mine of the 100 nearby books ( = internal quantification of (a) ) This change in interpretation would also mean that the interpretation of 'lo panono vi cukta' would become context-free, not dependent on the possibly following restrictives. It would also be possible to quantify the starting set without tricky constructs. KOhAs assigned between successive restrictives would each have a different referent. This would offer an advantage on relatively rare occasions. As Colin noted, his approach, however, gives more concise expressions -- at the expense of a modified syntax. To sum up: The presented change in approach would mean - minor relearning required - minor changes to the present pragmatics required - the restrictives as applied to descriptions would acquire a new meaning - occasionally more verbose expressions in comparison with Colin's scheme + no changes to the present syntax required + better agreement between syntax and semantics + a slight increase in expressive power + a slight increase in clarity + occasionally more concise expressions in comparison with the present pragmatics I am not, at the moment, suggesting this change but I should like to bring it up for discussion before it is too late. co'omi'e vei,on ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi