From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Fri May 13 03:24:31 1994 Message-Id: <199405130724.AA22409@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Fri May 13 03:24:31 1994 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Meaning of grammatical gismu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO 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