From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri May 28 00:49:04 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 29 May 1993 20:46:06 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5318; Sat, 29 May 93 20:45:14 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2582; Sat, 29 May 93 20:46:16 EDT Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 04:49:04 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: pe'a/po'a proposal (long) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: <5Sqpn1WsCxL.A.s8H.Q00kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> John Cowan writes: >Subject: TECH: Figurative speech: a minor change proposal I talked with Nora about this tonite, and her reaction was somewhat negative. I, too, am unconvinced, but think that Frank's implied suggestion that led to John's proposal here may be a good idea worth making an experimental part of the language (i.e., if unused, the status quo would prevail). I thus will at the end suggest a counterproposal which I think supports the status quo as well as a variation on this proposal which is fully optional. Since both versions of the proposal incur rafsi assignment changes, one decision must be made quickly. It has been my intent to baseline the modified rafsi list as of 1 June, which is Tuesday. I CAN make a change in the assignment for "pe'a" (which was assigned "peb" in the status quo baseline proposal) such that it allows consideration of one or both versions of change - we can then add a new rafsi for "po'a" which is mnemonically consistent. This would not necessarily commit us to either version of change, and allow a stable baseline. Or given my counterproposal, we can make the indicated change involving only 1 rafsi, which allows later consideration and addition of a 2nd rafsi should it be considered necessary. **************************************************************************** * * * I especially want to hear NICK's opinion on this issue, since he is our * * resident lujvo-making policy-proposer, and IVAN's opinion as well, since * * he has studied comparative tanru-making across a spectrum of the world's * * languages and may have insights into types of metaphors that we might * * tolerate in Lojban according to our current policies but which have not * * actually appeared in current usage. Failing that, or in addition, I * * would like John to look at Ivan's unpublished paper on the subject, * * since I know John has specifically looked at the Lojban aspects of the * * tanru Ivan discovered. * * * **************************************************************************** >Frank Schultz has been talking here and on conlang about different kinds >of compounds: semantic restriction ("blue house"), semantic extension >("wolf man"), poetic figurative forms ("broken heart"). Most >tanru/lujvo are of the first kind, but the second kind is also possible; >we have special marking particles for "figurative speech". This posting >discusses how the current markers work and some of the motivation behind >them, and proposes a slight change to make them both simpler and more >flexible. The norm for Lojban tanru is of the first (restriction) type, as John said. Nora (and John, I think) are skeptical about the second type, or at least about Frank's example - is a (werewolf) "wolf man" NOT a man of some type? After all, the gismu are designed with broad meanings. Furthermore, if one were to assume that a werewolf were NOT a type of man, then whatever it really is (a semantically extended base "man") is still being restricted by the modifier "wolf". Thus, Nora sees this example as being either purely or partially a semantic restriction. Probably most examples that people would propose as being 'semantic extensions' would indeed be a combination of an extension of one term and a restriction on the other term. If a tanru were composed of expansions of BOTH terms, it would probably be considered by most people to be of the third type. Other examples we came up with also fit this analysis: "space ship" is in some sense an expansion of the concept "ship", but the result is still being reduced by the modifier "space". We probably would consider a tanru based on "space ship" to be valid Lojban since you could come up with values for all places of "ship", as well as all places of "space" to fit the intended meaning. Another example, "cat house" in the sense meaning "brothel", is a kind of house, but the modifier "cat" has been expanded probably beyond acceptablility for Lojban to apply to human females. The rejected Loglan usage of "dog woman" (i.e. "bitch") as a derogative term for a human female also fits this latter category. Attempting to counter Nora's analysis, I suggested that if the right term is modified such that the resulting concept would use a consistent place structure with the final term, but the semantics is such that the final term alone would not be accurate, then you have what Frank is calling a 'semantic expansion' of meaning while NOT having a 'poetic expansion'. There can exist tanru in Lojban that meet this criteria, since the ultimate rule of Lojban tanru is that they always have the place structure of the final term (unless explicitly marked with "pe'a" or "po'a" as John defined in his posting, in which case the place structure is explicitly undefined). Unfortunately, I can't think of any examples from actual usage. Nora suggested back that "NAhE"-based tanru fit this version of second-category definition. In a sense, they do (a "na'e nanmu" probably must be something that has a place structure consistent with nanmu based on the tanru place structure rules, but which is not in itself a "nanmu"). But we have NOT traditionally considered NAhE and SE tanru to be normal tanru in the modifier/ modificand sense (and SE tanru, by definition, result in a place structure DIFFERENT from the original). It might be that an unmarked usage of the type for which the cmavo "xo'e" is being proposed (in that thread on this list) would be a semantic extension, by the analogy that ADDING a place, as with BAI, inherently imposes a restriction. Thus a "zbasu" relationship without a maker or without a material would be a semantic expansion of "zbasu". But of course, under current Lojban, tanru based on such expansions are not permitted (although LUJVO which reduce places through modification are permitted and probably will be common - I would consider "plutyclaxyklama" (long-form lujvo for "route-without-go") as an acceptable lujvo for teleportation as I've defined in the other thread with example "klama fo xo'e", and having exactly 4 places, excluding the route place.) However, Nora feels that these examples "cat house", "dog woman", and "xo'e"-type semantic modifications are all 'poetic' - they rely on an assumed understanding of the implied meanings of one or more gismu which extends beyond what she would consider acceptable in a culturally neutral language. The sense in which a human female is in ANY way a "dog" or a "cat" is to her very cultural, indeed unintelligible without recourse to a specific cultural point of view. And she dislikes the idea of "klama fo xo'e" (which is in any case not a tanru) being in any way considered a kind of "klama" relation(ship). But in these, at least the place structure has some relation to the original and official tanru place structure, unlike Frank's third category of metaphor ("broken heart" does not in any way refer to the organ for pumping blood; nor is it in any real sense 'broken'). The less extreme example "desert ship" for "camel" (i.e. ship of the desert) is a borderline case somewhere between types 2 and 3: it is after all restricted to the desert in some way, but it is a poetic and possibly culturally restricted metaphor to see a camel as a kind of ship. An example that has seen Lojbanic usage is Michael Helsem's "purple Lojban", which is used to apply to some of his writings that he admits is probably invalid Lojban. Such text is in no way "zirpu" = "purple", and it is indeed (especially in some of Michael's more extreme writings) arguable as to whether the text is in any sense 'Lojban'. Whether Michael's lujvo (as opposed to tanru) based on "purple Lojban" is valid Lojban without "pe'a" or "po'a" is arguable, as noted in the current thread being led by And on the segmentation of lujvo-meanings. While technically permitted by the lack of an official policy forbidding it, I consider even lujvo that are that 'poetic' to be "mabla" (derogative) unles marked, and proposed the rafsi for "pe'a" as part of the current change proposal as an answer. >Currently, we have two cmavo for figurative speech: "pe'a" (selma'o >PEhA) and "po'a" (selma'o POhA). Both are grammarless particles -- they >can occur anywhere. When both are used, they are the left and right >markers of figurative speech: ... >The use of the markers ... signals a culturally dependent metaphor -- >people from non-English-speaking cultures are not expected to understand >it, but are at least cautioned not to take it literally. >When "pe'a" is used without "po'a", the figurative intention persists >indefinitely: this could be used in skaldic poetry or the like, where >all tanru are probably figurative. However, it is also valid to use >"po'a" without "pe'a". In this case, "po'a" is treated as if it >belonged to selma'o UI: it applies to the previous word; if the >previous word begins or ends a grammatical construct, it applies to the >whole construct. The regular mechanism for extending the scope of >attitudinals ("fu'e" and "fu'o") does not apply to "po'a". >The proposal is to abandon this grammatical separation, and make both >"pe'a" and "po'a" regular members of UI. The intention is to then >separate them semantically. "pe'a" would be assigned to poetic >metaphor, whereas "po'a" would be used for semantic extension. (Memory >hook: pe'a/pemci.) This change (techfix 33) would simplify the grammar >a bit, as three selma'o (PEhA, POhA, UI) would be merged; this would >allow removing some hard-coded C support as well, although not enough to >be a substantial consideration. For occasions when figurative speech >must be prolonged, the regular UI mechanism with "fu'e" and "fu'o" would >be used. >All UI cmavo can be negated with "-nai", giving a polar negation. >"pe'anai" would mean "literal no matter how absurd", and "po'anai" would >mean "a semantic restriction even though it looks like an extension". Further thought leads me to query whether "literal" ever means anything other than "restriction". >In addition, both "pe'a" and "po'a" would be given rafsi, -pev- and >-pov- respectively, to allow the creation of figurative lujvo. A lujvo >beginning with pev- might have a totally erratic place structure. The first thing noticably missing from this proposal is that there is no defined way to carry the polar negations into lujvo. This can be remedied using the rafsi "na'e" (natfe=deny), or "dukti" (polar opposite). But such should be explicitly mentioned in any teaching of the principle if adopted. However, further thought, and the discussion with Nora, suggests that the status quo would suffice, given John's description, with only a small broadening of the use of "po'a". If Nora's basic contention is true, and Frank's second category is really not truly independent, then the whole of metaphor can be viewed as a continuum from restriction to (poetic) expansion. Examples that Frank or others might place in the 2nd category might be considered as being on the midpoint of that scale. Thus I counterpropose that "po'a" and "pe'a" retain their current scopes and basic meaning of "poetic figurative". However, it would be explicitly stated that these two words could take the scalar modifiers in selma'o NAI and CAI (I'm not sure whether this would actually take a YACC grammar change). tanru and lujvo of the norm (i.e., type 1 restrictions) would probably be unmarked, except when an exceptionally figurative lujvo has somehow crept into the system, in which case the modifier "po'anai" could follow the lujvo, or the rafsi-suffix "povna'e/"povdukti" could be incorporated into the lujvo, to signify that the "literal", restrictionist sense would apply. Type 2 "expansions" which are more-or-less borderline cases could be handled with "po'ano'e" or in lujvo with "povno'e" (since "no'e" is being assigned "-no'e" as a rafsi in the current change proposal), signifying a middle position on the restriction/poetic-expansion scale. Given the UI-like nature of "po'a" which would typically follow AFTER the tanru or lujvo and apply to the limited structure, I suggest that it be "po'a", and NOT "pe'a" that gets assigned a rafsi. "pe'a" as John explains it will seldom be used on a tanru/lujvo, but rather on a larger scope of text, since it will normally require a "po'a" to close it. Given John's explanation and a UI-like "po'a", ".ipo'a", and not ".ipe'a", would be the way, for example, to make an entire sentence/bridi figurative, "ni'opo'a" would give a non-literal interpretation to an entire paragraph, and "tu'epo'a" or "tu'upo'a" would handle a text of longer scope, leaving "pe'a" to be used only for irregular figurative blocking that is independent of the normal syntactic structures. "po'a" will thus be the far more-used of the two cmavo. The obvious question, John, is whether you see "po'a" as being UI-like in this extreme a sense. I hadn't thought about it this way until writing this. The use of "pe'ano'e", and "pe'anai" becomes a bit strange under this analysis, possibly meaningless. What is a non-poetic expansion of a large irregular block of text? Why would one mark a explicitly restrictionist or literal variety of such a text? Allowing NAI and CAI on "po'a" only may simplify any implementation. It would have to be decided, though whether a "po'ano'e" or a "po'anai" would close a "pe'a". I would rather see the modifiers as forcing a UI-like interpretation independent of the "pe'a"-closing function (and lujvo varieties definitely do not close "pe'a"), since this would allow a local "po'anai" inside a "pe'a/po'a" bracketing to serve as a local 'non-figurative' exception to a generally (and probably vaguely) figurative larger body of text. Sort of "I know you aren't taking any of this in its literal sense as a whole, but this one tanru/lujvo/sumti/sentence really can be taken at face value." The one problem with this is that bare "po'a" will usually appear AFTER the tanru/lujvo, and one would prefer that the lujvo form similarly appear as a suffix. This would not be possible with "pov", although the modified forms "povnai" and "povno'e" work fine. The only available rafsi for final position even remotely close to either "po'a" or "pe'a" is "pe'e". This could be assigned in addition or instead of "pov", giving suffix "pe'e" or (optionally, if both are used) "pe'enai" and "pe'eno'e" (I think I would be inclined to assign both, since the latter adds an unseemly 4 syllables and would probably as a result never be used). A somewhat more extreme change would be to simply move cmavo "po'a" to "pe'e" (and selma'o POhA to PEhE), still a recognizable pairing to close "pe'a". Alternatively, within lujvo, type 3 figurative lujvo would be left-marked with "pev", consistent with "pe'a", while "restrictions" and "expansions" would be marked with "povnai" and "povno'e". Not symmetrical, but consistent with the grammar of "pe'a" and "po'a". For the short term, while we try to baseline the rafsi, I therefore propose dropping "pef" for "pe'a" in favor of "pov" for "po'a", and possibly adding "pev" for "pe'a"). We can also consider adding "pe'e" as well for "po'a", and I will leave it to the other commenters whether this addition, and/or changing "po'a" to "pe'e" (along with the corresponding selma'o) would be worthwhile. This set or subset of changes allows the rafsi list to be baselined, (and makes a minimal change to the grammar if the selma'o name is changed), while allowing my counter proposal, or possibly some form of John's version, to be tried experimentally. If either or both proposals turn out to be invalid, or simply too 'baroque' for real usage, the default turns out to be the status quo (which I'll admit is already baroque enough that it has only been used by our baroque poet Helsem). But after all, if it ain't baroque, don't fix it zo'o.iunai lojbab