Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931011194038.288@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 1993 13:39:28 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: vilva
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 2763
Lines: 89

I agree with and like Ian's analysis, but about the example:

> But {cusku} doesn't have a "language" place, so I've got to use
> another word to tack this on.  We normally use {bau} or {bangu},
> although this has a seemingly irrelevant-in-this-context place
> for the people who speak the language.

bangu ban     bau  language
x1 is a/the language/dialect used by x2
to express/communicate x3 (si'o/du'u, not quote)

It doesn't look like it has to be all the speakers of the language.

>, using something like
> {[se] cusku bau la lojban.}

This one seems fine.

> or a lujvo {mi bausku dei la lojban.}.
> This doesn't look like any of the standard lujvo-construction
> patterns I remember, because the place structures don't connect
> at all, and monjvo heuristics are going to give us a "people-
> who-speak-the-language" place which isn't very interesting.

The heuristics give me:

selbausku  c1=b2 c2=b3 c3 c4=b1

x1 expresses x2 to x3 in language x4

The "sel-" may fall off, as it does in some cases, but that's one of
the standard ways of breaking the guidelines (I refrained from saying
rules).

> Perhaps {cusku} should have a language place,

No, please, no!

> but then someone
> would come up with a lujvo involving {cusku} where the language
> was irrelevant.

Almost always.

> It's a judgement call, and we're going to get
> some of them wrong, and discuss them, and change them, and it's
> a living language, isn't it?

iacu'i go'i
i ia pu'o jmive

> I could do the same for the subject/topic of a statement.
> Maybe {[se] notci} covers this, although it doesn't have
> a language place.  {jufra} covers both, but is restricted to
> a single "sentence" ({me la'e zo .i}?).  Etc...

I'm not sure about this. I would think {jufra} should cover
"statement". You have also {notci bau}, I see nothing wrong in
using BAIs, that's what they're for after all.

> I agree in principle with John(?) that gismu places should
> all be there in the lujvo, but normally not be used.

I agree that all the places that are not filled by a terjvo
should be there. (Many places from different terjvo are also
often merged into one.)

> What would be useful is some way of determining and/or
> indicating which places are marginal - ideally they should
> be displaced towards the end of the list.  But I don't see
> any way of doing this.

In most cases, they do fall at the end, if you follow the guidelines
from Nick's paper. The ones that don't will have to be exceptions,
I guess. I haven't studied enough of them to see if there's any
pattern.

> Neither do I see how you {zi'o}
> out places in a component of a lujvo.

Neither do I. I don't like that at all.

> banzu
> .i nunsipna tcika
> mi'e .i,n.

i ri'i mi tcika le nu sezyxru le nu gunka
mi'e xorxes