From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:57 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 5 May 1993 13:54:53 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3930; Wed, 05 May 93 13:54:06 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3717; Wed, 05 May 93 11:43:37 EST Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 11:42:00 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: bob%GNU.AI.MIT.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Tue, 4 May 1993 15:44:13 EDT X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 5 07:42:00 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: >Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 15:44:13 EDT >Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was bob@GRACKLE.STOCKBRIDGE.MA.US >From: bob%GNU.AI.MIT.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us > > > The Nick/Lojbab experimental cmavo "xo'e", which eradicates a place > This pops up for me when I want to say something universal, but > where the natural gismu seems to want an agent: "Living things are > made from cells [by whom?]", ... English gets away with a > passive here, because the passive in English does not commit you > to the existence of an agent... >English does commit you. A fair portion of English speakers to do >think that the passive in English commits you to the existence of an >agent. There is a semantic ambiguity in the meaning of the word. >Some people use `is made from' to mean `is composed of' others use it >to mean `is made by an entity'. Perhaps a little off-topic, but I note (now that I've been reading Hebrew grammar books in an attempt to learn intellectually what my tongue already knows, and to help teach someone the language) that Hebrew uses different forms for these situations. The passive verbal mood, the nif`al, usually implies an agent (ne`esah==was made, presumably by someone), while the passive participle, the pa`ul, is more stative and doesn't imply an agent (`asui==just in a state of being/having been made, not necessarily by anyone) (grammar's less than ideal with this verb, as it's gutteral-initial and heh-final, which does odd things in conjugation). Similarly, "ha-chalon nisgar" means "the window is closed (by someone)", but "ha-chalon sagur" means "the window is just plain closed". It may be significant that the agent-implying nif`al is a full-fledged verbal construction, whose finite forms all have tense associated, thus indicating that the action of getting-closed happened at some point, and maybe thus at someone's hands, while the pa`ul is a time-independent participle, like an adjective. Just struck me as interesting... ~mark