From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Mar 16 08:17:06 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 16 Mar 1993 19:17:40 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4943; Tue, 16 Mar 93 19:16:33 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4960; Tue, 16 Mar 93 19:17:39 EST Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 16:17:06 -0800 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Subject: Re: TECH: more about *mo'u X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR Message-ID: Colin Fine writes that in the construction {mi bebau la lojban casnu} it is inconceivable to interpret "bebau la lojban" simultaneously as specifying the language of discussion, and as being an integral part of the syntactically determined sumti {mi bebau la lojban}. It has to be attached to one phrase or the other, not both at once. If the sumti means anything, it means that "I" am somehow "in" the Lojban language. He and Mark Shoulson say that termsets are the right way to go, and I agree. For example: nu'i mi bau la lojban nu'u .e do bau la gliban (nu'u) cu sanga [ I (in Lojban) ] and [ you (in English) ] sing Someone (Mark I think) put out the hardest challenge: to use casnu as the selbri, since it demands a plural set for its x1, the members of which discuss something among themselves, like this: mi ce do casnu (bau la lojban) I and(set) you discuss (something) (in Lojban language) The following is tempting: nu'i mi bau la lojban nu'u ce do bau la gliban (nu'u) cu casnu I in Lojban and(set) you in English discuss What might it expand into? mi casnu bau la lojban .icebo do casnu bau la gliban I discuss in Lojban and (set) you discuss in English So we have a set composed of discourse level assertions of events of discussion among single persons. This isn't very useful. Unless someone can come up with a more creative use of grammar, I have to conclude that you cannot express the required meaning unambiguously in Lojban, that I and you discuss (something) AND that my part of the discussion was in Lojban while yours was in English. I don't shed any tears. English speakers sling sumti around and expect their listeners to get them organized right, even inferring unspoken default selbri. A logical language ought to have definite rules by which the spoken words and phrases are organized and interpreted. In consequence, complicated combined meanings which can be elided in English will have to be written out prolixly in full if the rules are to be followed. So if you want to be illogical, speak English. -- jimc