Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0q1g76-00006TC; Thu, 12 May 94 22:08 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1852; Thu, 12 May 94 22:08:16 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1849; Thu, 12 May 1994 22:08:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5072; Thu, 12 May 1994 21:06:39 +0200 Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 16:53:33 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Meaning of grammatical gismu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1719 Lines: 58 I've just been thinking again about grammatical terms in Lojban. In trying to come up with place structures for 'terminator' (famyma'o/fa'orma'o .e'u) and 'logical connector' (I now suggest lojyki'ima'o rather than trying to use jorne), I have realised that there is an inconsistency among the terms we have as gismu. Specifically, cmavo x1 is a structure word, grammar exemplified by word x2, with meaning/function x3 in language x4 refers to a cmavo by its abstract function, whereas gadri x1 is an article/descriptor labelling description x2 in sentence x3, language x4, semantics x5 refers to one actually in use in a sentence. To put it another way, I claim that zo mi cu ni'i cmavo because mi is indeed a structure word, with sensible values for the other sumti (specifically zo mi cu cmavo zo ko'a lo nu sinxa le cusku kei la lojban.) But zo le cu gadri is not necessarily true - in fact is only true if in some extralinguistic way I am indicating that the particular instance of 'le' to which I am referring is actually being used in a sentence to introduce a description. In particular, lu le zdani li'u zo'u zo le pe ri cu gadri fi no da I think that this is a real problem, but the problem is not in the definitions, but in the way we are inclined to use them. I suggest that in fact zo le cu gadri actually is false, unless 'zo le' is anaphoric for a particular instance of 'le' in use, and for the general case we need a tanru or lujvo: zo le cu gadma'o gadma'o x1 is an article/descriptor, grammar exemplified by word x2, with meaning/function x3 in language x4 However, if this is correct, then the 'language' place of 'gadri' is inappropriate. Thoughts, anybody? Colin