From nsn  Sat Mar  6 22:52:44 2010
From: nsn (Nick Nicholas)
Subject: Re: Place structure paper, version 1.2
To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 22:44:06 +1000 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@grebyn.com, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au, c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk,
        vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi, I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk,
        shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Message-ID: <q-eAbRueeRH.A.DO.800kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

The Seraphim surely rejoiced when John Cowan spoke thus:

#This paper describes the various ways in which the place structure of
#Lojban bridi is expressed and by which it can be manipulated.  The place
#structure of a selbri is a sequence of empty slots into which the sumti
#associated with that selbri are placed.  Sumti are said to occupy the
#places of a selbri.

I'd suggest this paragraph be extended to two or three. As it stands, it
seems a bit too densely packed with Lojban jargon for a first paragraph,
potentially quite hard to follow. I can't suggest an alternate wording
for several reasons: the rewording does have to be succinct, and Lojbab's
first textbook lessons shows this can be anything but succinct to word;
further, we're not sure how independent of context this paper is; can we
really assume the reader to be fully conversant with all these concepts?
I'd suggest that even if we can, this paragraph is still a bit too terse.

#The "x1...x5" indicates that "klama" is a five-place predicate, and show
#the natural order (as assigned by the language engineers) of those
#places:  agent, destination, origin, route, means.

While it is true that it has been so assigned by the {bauzba}, it's a 
somewhat dangerous assertion to make without qualification; I'd suggest
it would be sounder to include somewhere the disclaimer that place structures 
are subject to revision by the community. That may in fact deserve a para
of its own.

#2.1)	mi cu klama la bastn. la .atlantas. le dargu le karce
#	I go to-Boston from-Atlanta via-the road using-the car.

It'd be useful to make this sentence as informative as possible, to foster
the awareness in the reader that places, which do often get elided, aren't
included for fun, but have a real communicative function. Thus an example
more akin to the textbook, perhaps:

mi klama la bastn. la .atlantas. le 56moi banlydargu le karce po lemi bruna

(Or whatever name of a highway is appropriate).

#2.4)	klama la bastn. la .atlantas. le dargu le karce
#	A-goer to-Boston from-Atlanta via-the road using-the car.

I take it translating this as "Goes to-Boston" etc. would be out for seeming
to rule out non-3rd person singular?

#Such a bridi, with empty x1, is called an "observative",
#because it calls on the listener to observe something in the environment
#which would belong in the x1 place.

An illustrative approximate translation into English would help here: "Look!
Goes to Boston!" Of course, the translation you've already provided may be
taken as sufficient.

#There is a way to both provide a sumti for the x1 place and place the
#selbri first in the bridi: see Example 3.7.

I think this should go into brackets, as should a few other parenthetical
comments; they detract otherwise.

#Example 2.5 has empty x4 and x5 places: the speaker does not specify the
#route or the means of transport.  

It is always worth mentioning that these places don't cease existing merely
because they are elided: before you introduce zo'e, do make explicit that
the places are still there, in the translation: "via an unmentioned route,
using an unmentioned vehicle". The naive reader can think the elided places
cease unless told otherwise; you do say otherwise, but I think you should
do so a bit more explicitly. As we have seen, this is an important point
in usage.

#However, simple omission will not work
#for places whose successors are to be specified: in

I'd use a term other than 'successors': "when the places around them are
not omitted".

#In Example 3.1, the tags are overkill; they serve only to make Example 2.1
#even longer than it is.  Here is a better illustration of the use of FA tags
#for clarification:

I didn't find this a convincing argument for the reminding use of FA, but
then I'm being difficult %^) . I'd drop the {fa} and {fe}, and make the
jufra bridi more involved, so that the reader really would welcome a reminder
of which is the current place.

#What if some sumti have FA tags and others do not?  The rule is that after
#a tagged sumti, any following untagged sumti occupy the succeeding places,

I'd disambiguate: "any places following it occupy the places succeeding it".

#3.10)	fi'a do dunda fe le vi rozgu
#	[what place]? you give x2= the nearby rose
#	Are you the giver or the receiver of this rose?

Interesting question: what would "fi'a do dunda le rozgu" mean? Your using
"fe" implies to me that it'd depend on the answer: the rose would be either
x2 or x4. And yet thinking that it would still be x2 would come naturally
to me. I think you need to flesh this out more, that the sentence really
takes on meaning only when the blank of "fi'a" is filled in.

#In particular, after the application of any SE
#cmavo, the number and purposes of the places remain the same, but two of
#them have been exchanged, the x1 place and another.  Which place has been
#exchanged with x1 depends on the cmavo chosen.

"Thus, for example, when "se" is used, the x1 place is swapped with the x2
place." 

#4.1)	la bastn. cu se klama mi
#	Boston is-the-destination of-me.
#	Boston is my destination.

I think it would be nice to remind the reader of the passiviser connection:
add in brackets "(Boston is gone to by me)".

#Structurally,
#however, they are quite different.  Example 4.1 has "la bastn." in the
#x1 place and "mi" in the x2 place of the selbri "se klama", and uses
#standard bridi order; Example 4.2 has "mi" in the x1 place and "la bastn."
#in the x2 place of the selbri "klama", and uses a non-standard order.

A sentence or two, here, of how the emphasis is changed as a result.

#Example 4.6 does not mean "the route" plain and simple: that is "le pluta",
#using a different selbri.  It means a route that is used by someone for
#an act of "klama"; that is, a journey with origin and destination.

"A 'road' on Mars on which noone has travelled or is ever likely to, may
be called "le pluta", but it cannot be "le ve klama", since here exists
no "da" such that it is "le ve klama be fo da" (the route taken in an
actual journey by someone [da])."

#In order to convert a tanru, it is necessary
#to enclose the tanru in "ke...ke'e" brackets:

I'd say "an entire tanru".

#The place structure of "blanu zdani" (blue house) is the same as that
#of "zdani", by the rule given in Section 1; the place structure of "zdani"
#is:
#	x1 is a house/nest/lair/den for inhabitant x2
#The place structure of "se zdani" is therefore:
#	x1 is the inhabitant of house (etc.) x2

Wrong derivation: give the place structure of "blanu zdani", then se-convert
the whole thing. Mentioning the se-conversion of "zdani" alone will give
rise to erroneous impressions.

#Consequently, Example 4.7 means:

4.8.


#(Although no one has made any real use of it, it is perhaps worth noting
#that compound conversions of the form "setese", where the first and third
#cmavo are the same, effectively swap the two places mentioned while leaving
#the others, including x1, alone:  "setese" (or equivalently "tesete") swap
#the x2 and x3 places, whereas "texete" (or "xetexe") swap the x3 and x5
#places.)

"two places mentioned" sounds like it anaphorises back, which I don't think
it does; just say "two given places". Do mention "He told me this --- ko'a
setese cusku mi di'u" as a possible use for "setese", even if with 
reservations --- a few of us have already been tempted to use it, and I'm
sure it will turn up in a text eventually.

#The cmavo "fi'o" (of selma'o FIhO) followed by
#a selbri, in this case the gismu "kanla", is prefixed to the sumti which
#fills the new place, "le zunle".  

A bit hard to follow: how about "the combination of "fi'o" and a selbri, in
this case "kanla", form a tag which is prefixed to the sumti filling the
new place, "le zunle". "

#The semantics of "fi'o kanla le zunle"
#is that "le zunle" fills the x1 place of "kanla", whose place structure is
#
#	x1 is an/the eye of body x2

"Thus "le zunle" is an eye."

#It is important to remember that even though "le zunle" is
#placed following "fi'o kanla", semantically it belongs in the x1 place.

the x1 place of "kanla". (Not of viska).

#The "tool user" place is the x2 of
#"se pilno" (because it is the x1 of "pilno") and remains unspecified.

Mention what "fi'o pilno" would mean.

#"ka'a", the BAI corresponding to the gismu "klama", has five useful
#forms corresponding to the five places of "klama" respectively:

I remain to be convinced that "ka'a" is useful, but then, I am a BAI-cynic :)

#6.6)	[to be supplied]

mi citka xeka'a le karce (or whatever "airplane" is.)

#There are four causal gismu in Lojban, or maybe six, distinguishing
#different versions of the relationships lumped in English as "causal":

(Not fair to leave your reader dangling: mention parenthetically the other
two).

#In Examples 7.1-7.4, the same English word "because" is used to translate
#all four modals, but the types of cause being expressed are quite different.

To stress this, some more examples would be useful, showing how using a
different modal in the same sentence gives different shades of meanings.
Unfortunately any such example would probably sound strained.

#Suppose we wish to claim both events as well as their causal relationship?

Make explicit what "claiming" means: in "If you water it, it grows", state
explicitly that you haven't said you *have* watered it, or that the plant
*has* grown. And similarly for the other cases.

#this example, no longer modifies an explicit sumti.  Instead, the sumti
#is implicit, the event given by a full bridi.  Furthermore, there is a
#second implication:  that the first bridi fills the x2 place of the
#gismu "rinka"; it specifies an event which is the effect.

And mention the example with "rinka" as the selbri as an effective paraphrase,
with the difference that now you *have* watered it, and it *has* grown.

#The sentence connective ".ibaubo"
#is perfectly grammatical, but it is hard to imagine any two sentences
#which could be connected by an "in-language" modal.

"This is because a sentence can be a cause, or an effect, but not a language."

#	With-physical-effect I grasp the-mass-of water , I grasp the cup.

The paraphrase "(Causing the mass of water to be grasped by me, I grasped
the cup)" would be helpful.

#
#8.9)	li ny. du li vo
#		Motivated-by the-number n = the-number 2 + 2.
Entailed-by!

#8.10)	li ny. du li ni'igi vei re su'i re [ve'o] gi vo
#	the-number n = the-number because ( 2 + 2 ) therefore 4.

Again, paraphrase (otherwise the reader may have no earthly idea why you'd
want to say this): "n is 2+2, and is thus 4".

I'll finish this off tomorrow.

##############################################################################
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Noth,      You are reading another .sig from
# Der Mensch liegt in groesster Pein;     the NICK NICHOLAS .sig Factory. Mail
# Je lieber moecht ich im Himmel sein.     [nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au] for your
#    -- Des Knaben Wunderhorn, _Urlicht_   .sig suggestions. [Padding Space]