Message-Id: <199311170639.AA13954@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 17 Nov 1993 01:37:34 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: response on old posting - lujvo-making TECH/PHILOSOPHY (long)
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

Responding to Jorge's comments on my long posting:

JL> > This argument has the problem backwards.  Indeed for examples that we
JL> > use NOW, we are talking of deleting places to match a natlang concept.
JL>
JL> But the whole discussion has been about these examples. I doubt that
JL> there will be a need to create words for concepts that don't exist in a
JL> natlang for at least some time.

Probably true, but also false.  The concepts exist in natlangs, but when
you are thinking IN LOJBAN, you will hopefully not be phrasing the
concepts in other-lang terms before phrasing them in Lojban.  As a
result, you may not grab hold of the same component gismu that you would
when being fullt analytical based on transaltion.  You will probably, if
you think of a goer, a route, and not a destination, grab hold of litru
rather than klama, even if in English or Spanish, you might express it
in words that strongly connote origin, destination, or means.

JL> Of course, before thinking of the dog house maker, we could think
JL> of just the dog house. Is a dog house intrinsically for a particular
JL> breed of dog? I'd say no, so the problem has nothing to do with the
JL> lujvo for dog house maker, but for the one for dog house.
JL> And we can keep going back and ask whether what we want as the component
JL> of gerzda is {gerku be zo'e} or {gerku be zi'o}. I'd say the latter
JL> is a better translation of English "dog", because in most cases we
JL> are not talking about the relationship between an individual and
JL> a breed, but rather, simply about a certain type of individual(s).
JL> We want a gismu that is parallel to remna, but referring to dogs
JL> instead of humans. Such a gismu doesn't exist, and then we have to
JL> use something approximate.

But that is the point.  There is NO single Lojban expression that is THE
translation for "dog", and you need a context (under conditions) and
standard place to talk about "better" translations.

In any case, whether the English normally does or does not include the
se gerku is irrelevant to the Lojban lujvo - and indeed I contend that
what matters when you invent a lujvo using gerku, is whether your
concept DOES have a significant use for the se gerku.  If it does not,
in the concept you are considering, I do not agree that you need to
explicitly mark the deletion with zi'o into the lujvo.  Now someone else
making a similar concept at a different time which DOES rely on the se
gerku place, might get a different place structure.  This will happen,
and eventually consensus will decide, probably on the fatter place
structure where there is no easy "BAI" to add it back on, UNLESS the
ratio of usage of the two concepts is so strong that Zipf demands that
the fatter (with se gerku place) concept be expressed long-windedly
(which in the case of dog house is likely).

JL> > I want lujvo-makers to _conceive_ first, then make lujvo to match their
JL> > conceptions.  I don't think they should be constrained by our ad hoc,
JL> > often arbitrary, and probably cultrually-biased decisions about gismu
JL> > place structures.
JL>
JL> Those arbitrary place structures are what the language is about, no?
JL> If we can throw some away because they don't fit when making lujvo,
JL> why wouldn't we do the same when they don't fit in using them as gismu?

Because at the gismu level, which presumably includes the most common
words, it is likely that a concept with the 'extra' place included is
more common than the extra syllables need to add that place (which might
be a fi'o plus another brivla or a lujvo that adds too many terms in and
hence is hard to work with) warrants. gismu are being used as building
blocks, and it is easier to omit from the resulting set of places
(provided that we agree this is permissible) than it is to add them in.

Furthermore, to minimize our gismu and maximize their lujvo-making
power, we have tried to abstract some of them a little beyond English
norms (not applicable to gerku, but true for others, as Colin often
points out).

Presumably, on the other hand, most lujvo, especially lujvo of 3 or more
terms, will rarely be used as building blocks, and will represent less
common concepts.  Less common concepts tend to be more specific and
concrete.  When you have a concrete concept in mind, then various
abstractions present in the building blocks used to express that concept
may be irrelevant to the specific concept you have in mind.  Now if you
are taking time, and wish to analyze things, out, you will look at all
such places and try to envision whether you can imagine they would EVER
be relevant or metaphysically important.  In scholarly written Lojban
this might be more common in lujvo-making.  Hopefully also in poetry.
But not in informal or spoken Lojban.  And since we hope that the latter
will be the norm, we have to expect that most words will be added in that
mode, and recognize what effect this will have on lujvo-making.

>> When you are making a lujvo, it should be irrelevant whether the gismu
>> you are making it from is 'fat'.  The lujvo is NOT the gismu; it is a
>> different, albeit (hopefully) related word.
>
>But is it related to the relationship represented by the gismu, or to
>some other relationship represented by a zi'oed gismu?

I claim that it doesn't matter, because I want lujvo making to be
informal enough that metaphorically, the zi'od gismu can be expressed
using the regular form, UNLESS you can easily conceive of circumstances
where the distinction is important and you would want the fatter version
used in a lujvo as well.

>Ok, so you say that it's legitimate to use a rafsi to represent either a
>gismu, or a zi'oed gismu.  I don't like this.  I'd say that the
>likelihood of that some other gismu to exist should be proportional to
>the likelihood that it will be needed.  The better the gismu cover
>"concept space", the more likely the gismu you need will exist.

But that was not the basis used for deciding what gismu there would be
in the language.

>The point is that such a lujvo won't become a dictionary word unless it
>enters the language by being used (more than once and by more than one
>speaker, of course) or it is written in the dictionary as a definition
>(like all gismu).  In this last case, I don't think we can simply remove
>places because they don't fit the concept.

I'm hoping that this latter case will be the exception rather than the
rule in adding words to the dictionary.  Thus far it is. the 3000-odd
lujvo that are being added so far include mostly lujvo created for a
specific usage and context, as opposed to the Eaton effort.

>How can you teach those good habits, if you don't know what they are.
>The identification of the underlying patterns is a way of creating those
>habits.

The habit I want most is to THINK ABOUT the component gismu, and where
possible, their places considering each for relevance, and not
willy-nilly including gismu based on their keywords (which is the
typical alternative).

If we do this well - just this one rule - we will end up with a far
better language for neutrality purposes than any other single rule, and
I suspect we might end up with a better overall language than adding in
a detailed set of rules that might trade spontaneity for
accuracy/predicatability.

I also want to minimize the necessity for people to memorize place
structures thoroughly or accurately, as part of learning the language.
Skilled Lojbanists will probably know most of the place structures, but
the typical learner won't, and likely won't even know every single
gismu.  The less our standard 'policy' seems to hinge on accurate
knowledge of the place structures, the more we can assert that people
should not feel intimidated by them.  Once we have a large body of
fluent speakers, they may look at these initial lujvo and indeed think
them atrociously irregular and set in some more systematic word-making
rules, and Nick's effort seems like a more than reasonable first cut for
such systematization, and an effective way to set initial place
structures for a lot of words where we simply don't have time to work
out place structures more 'naturally'.

Of course, I worry that large numbers of Nick's lujvo, especially after
the weeding he has done on them, and after applying the place structures
he has algorithmically defined for them, will not work properly in the
texts from which they were originally culled.  Similarly, any revamping
of the vocabulary by fluent Lojbanists will render older texts by less
skilled Lojbanists obsolete and in need of revision.  But that is
inevitable in a bootstrapped language like this that explicitly wants to
avoid copying patterns from the most easily available natlang models (as
does Esperanto).

>My question is:  How do you write the definition of a lujvo in a
>dictionary?  If the lujvo has been used a lot, then we look at how it's
>been used, and get from there the place structure.  If we are creating
>the lujvo for the dictionary, there is no usage to base the definition
>on, but we can still get a pretty good idea of what places it has/should
>have.

And I have agreed that Nick's approach is better than any other idea we
have come up with.  I just want it considered that these rules might
ONLY be appropriate for adding words in dictionary-making mode, and are
not the best mode for analyzing real texts (I would hate to see a new
Lojbanist composing their first Lojban text, including several lujvo
coinages, and getting comments back based heavily on Nick's scheme.  It
would cause me, for example, to give up trying to write in the language.
On the other hand, for trying to get a good Lojbanist like you, Nick, or
me up to a more skilled level, such analysis is worthwhile for critique,
as long as the author retains the right to let their instincts override
the rules on any particular lujvo.

>> I think people are forgetting this VITAL goal when they argue for fat
>> lujvo, thoroughly analytical place structures, etc.
>
>I haven't seen those arguments, so I can't comment.

I apologize if I have falsely characterized your views.  I contend that
a policy that lujvo contain all places implied by component gismu UNLESS
there is a specific rule-based deletion transform is a policy for fat
lujvo and analytical place structures.

But...

>> the fact that
>> I can theoretically fill the place with 'loi se gerku' is really rather
>> pointless (indeed, this is one obvious criterion where Nick might
>> specifically identify possible lujvo place deletion - when the value of
>> the place is 'loi [the corresponding gismu place]' without any
>> restriction.
>
>This is an interesting idea. At least it's not a totally arbitrary
>deletion.

... on the other hand, I can imagine that as we get more skilled at the
language and lujvo-making, we will come to recognize new patterns in the
types of deletions that we want to make in place structures that will
make the deletions seem less arbitrary, as in this case.

We can hope so.

lojbab
rz
** B00000000000000

 ----
lojbab                           Note new address:    lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273