Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931010005957.288@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Sat, 9 Oct 1993 16:00:11 -0700
Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Sender: vilva
From: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Subject:      Re: TECH: long, but major topic: lean lujvo and fat gismu
To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Mon,
              04 Oct 93 02:58:11 EDT." <9310040715.AA27416@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Content-Length: 2989
Lines: 57

Lojbab writes cogently about lean lujvo, and I find that I agree with
just about all he has said.  In particular, the referent of unspecified
places can certainly be compound, not just a single unspecified item.

While Lojbab is correct that algorithmic determination of lujvo place
structures (jvajvo) won't have a 100% success rate, I would suggest that
the success rate could be made a lot higher if the place structures of
the gismu were adjusted in coordination with the proposed jvajvo
algorithms.  In particular, the currently rather plump gismu need to lose
extraneous places; standard place orders need to be decided on and
adhered to; and we need to carry through the current effort to identify
and reinterpret places that are influenced by "raising", so that each
place either does or does not "expect" to normally be used with an
abstraction.  With these changes jvajvo algorithms can be a lot easier
to use and a lot more reliable.

> Which should be chosen for the dictionary?  A little easier question,
> but not much.  First of all, we have to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that
> all lujvo place structures at this point are ONLY proposals, and that
> actual usage may cause them to (need to) be changed.  This is no
> different than what I say for the gismu place structures and why I
> refuse to baseline them even when the dictionary is published.  The
> place structures are the heart of the meaning of each word of the
> language, and I do not believe that we can analyze each thoroughly
> enough to know the perfect place structure for usages that have yet to
> be seen.

Hear, hear!  We need the dictionary soon, but it's very clear that the
place structures,  particularly of the lujvo, are far from ready to be
baselined.  I regret that authoritative data couldn't go into the
dictionary, but it's better to have a dictionary with non-baselined
places than to have no dictionary at all, in my opinion.

> So what to propose?  I suggest that the propensity to use lujvo as
> term-bases for longer lujvo should lead us to eliminate places where
> practical, i.e. make our lujvo relatively "lean".  We don't want
> "gerkyzdanydinjyzbasu" (dog-house-building-maker) to have all of the
> possible places suggested by the components:

Yes, I agree.

> I tend to like to delete places when the option exists to add back in
> (relatively unambiguously) using a BAI tag.

Me too -- this statement was about lujvo, but I suggest the same for
gismu: when there is a place that is reasonably well served by a BAI,
and when it is not really at the core of the gismu's meaning, and when
it is not expected to be productive for jvajvo, then it should be
taken out of the gismu definition.  (A note about potentially useful
BAI places would be nice though.)  The "transport means" of klama is
one of my favorite examples.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating what others have said, but I've been out of
contact for two weeks and am catching up on a serial terminal...

                -- jimc