Message-Id: <m0qow6c-00001DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 25 Sep 1994 12:05:48 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re; And/Jorge on gismu lexicon
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 14776
Lines: 320

And Rosta >>>
Jorge Llambias >>   (only quoted where I respond to his posts)
And again >

Summary:  one BIG open issue that probably needs a non-place structure
solution, 1 new lujvo proposal, and a couple of English synonyms to be
added to the dictionary.  A lot of words to explain why (and more often:
why not).

My tone is perfunctory, but this is not intended to be critical or
condescending.  I think it good that people pose questions and
criticisms about word meanings, as long as they are accepting of the
fact that the window of opportunity to change definitions of words in
other-than-clarificational ways is rapidly closing.

>>>(1) x2 of nitcu (need), djica (want) and cpedu (request), and x3 of
>>>pikci (beg) should be an event abstraction.  "Need/want/ask/beg to have"
>>>should be rendered "ponse zei nitcu/djica/cpedu/ pikci" (with x2 of the
>>>lujvo being x2 of ponse).

I think this is part of the ongoing discussion.  Unfortunately this is
not likely to be a complete list.  See my other posting regarding
intensionality.  I am hoping no place structure changes are needed (i.e
that we can solve it discursively or even pragmatically), since (as I
show below) the list of possible intensional predicates ranges into a
lot of weird areas.

>>>(2) Facki (find, discover) is redundant.  Facki is equivalent to cilre
>>>(learn) (except that cilre has an x4 place for method, which is anyway
>>>not inappropriate for discovering.)

Even if I agreed with the equivalence, we do not delete gismu for mere
redundancy.  In this case as well as others you pose, the redundancy is
from a gismu to a lujvo in all probability.  This means that all lujvo
that might be built out of facki would take an extra term, making lujvo
longer.  Several gismu are in the list primarily because it is believed
that they will be useful in making Zipfeanly short lujvo.

The current lujvo list has 7 lujvo for facki, all in final term
position, and 3 for cilre in various positions.


>>>(3) Sisku (seek) is redundant and too vague.  (x2 of sisku is in my list
>>>object/event/property.  I believe that this has been changed to just
>>>property, but either way I don't understand why.)  "Mi sisku do" is
>>>either "Mi troci lenu mi { penmi [=encounter] / ponse [=possess] / jitro
>>>[=control] } do" or "I try to learn where you are" (don't know how to
>>>say that, but it involves "mi troci lenu mi cilre" (-- can someone
>>>please remind me how Lojban handles subordinate interrogatives, as in "I
>>>wonder what you're reading"?)).  These could be condensed into
>>>penmi/ponse/jitro zei troci (with x2 of lujvo being x2 of
>>>penmi/ponse/jitro).

See above re redundancy, probably usefulness in lujvo (although sisku is
only in 1 lujvo so far in the current list).

>>That said, faktoi (facki troci) is a nice synonym for sisku.

Only if we solve the intensional places problem per And's (1). troci and
sisku relate to in-mind things, while you cannot facki unless the se
facki is 'real'.  (Meanwhile it is possible to cilre a falsehood, so it
also might be intensional/in mind, along with things that are se ctuca)
You can bring our "any" discussion into these places and raise spectres
of existence/quantification problems with "I am teaching about
unicorns", "I am learning (anything/anything I can) about unicorns".  "I
dreamt about unicorns", and "I remember seeing a unicorn (our memories
are not necessarily reality).  It becomes easy to find places where "da
poi" quantification is a problem, and in some of these, the possibly
sumti-raised "da poi" is an abstraction, and eliminating sumti-raising
might force us to explicit 2nd-order abstractions:

mi cilre ledu'u da zo'u da ka de zo'u de mela .iunikorn.
I learn something that is a property of some unicorn.
I learn anything about unicorns.

Yeccch!!!

>>>(4) How to say "I search the pockets"?  "mi zukte fe le nu catlu le
>>>daski kei fi le nu mi penmi/ponse/jitro/kavbu"?  (Or with lujvo, "mi
>>>catlu zei zukte le daski le nu mi penmi/ponse/jitro/kavbu".)  I assume
>>>"catlu" means not "look" but "inspect, examine".

The gismu list gives several synonyms, including those.  Certainly catlu
is not limited to visual examination, but then neither is English
"look".

>>Since {sisku} is not going away, sisycta (sisku catlu) may be more clear
>>than ctazu'e (catlu zukte).  I don't see in the last one where you get a
>>place for the looked for object.

>The looked for object would either be a "lenu ponse/cpacu" as
>x3 analogous to x3 of zukte, or it could be a stipulated x3
>for the lujvo.

It is possible to search pockets without having a specific (or general)
goal in mind for the object/property you are looking for.  In fact, you
can search a pocket without expecting to find anything:  "I search the
pocket to see if it is empty", which actually goes well with the current
'property' place structure.

"Stipulated x3" sounds like you are saying 'pull it out of thin air'.
In the era of Nick's analytical lujvo-making, this will be unlikely to
fly.  (And it certainly won't vofli %^)

>>>(5) How to say "watch, heed, pay attention to"?  'Zgana' doesn't seem
>>>right.

If you grep the gismu list for "attention" you get exactly 1 word, which
is "jundi", which is probably the word you want.  "heed" is not in the
list and I will add it as a synonym for tinbe as well as jundi.  "watch"
greps in catlu and zgana - the former implying that the watching is
intentional.

>>I'v seen {kurji} used in this sense, but I don't like it.  How do you
>>take care of an event?

I hope not from me %^)  jundi works for events as well as objects

>I don't like it either.

Me too! Me too!


>>>(6) simlu:  x1 seems/appears to have property(ies) x2 to observer x3
>>>under conditions x4.  So "I seem blue" is "mi simlu le ka blanu"?  Then
>>>how to say "It seems to be raining, it seems that it is raining"?  I
>>>think we should be able to say "simlu fa le duhu carvi" - that is, x1 of
>>>simlu is a duhu abstraction and x2 is scrapped.  "I seem blue" would be
>>>"simlu fa le duhu mi blanu".
>>>   simlu: x1 (duhu) seems-to-be-the-case to observer x2
>>>    under conditions x3.
>>>or, perhaps more usefully:
>>>   simlu: to observer x1 x2 (duhu) seems-to-be-the-case
>>>    under conditions x3.
>>>
>>>(This latter order avoids need for 'fa' to postpose the duhu clause, &
>>>lends itself as a translation of "it seems to me that...".)

It seems to be raining.
leka carvi cu se simsa

I seem blue
leka mi blanu cu se simsa

It is possible that x1 is redundant if we hammer down the method of
focussing on one sumti in a ka abstraction, which is an open issue.  It
will still not be deleted, since simlu is used in 8 lujvo, all of which
use simlu1, and not all of which use simlu2.  Objects tend to be what we
focus on in seemings, whereas what they seem like is often what the
other part of the lujvo is trying to talk about.

>> If you change du'u to nu, I agree. Nick mentioned this a short
>> while ago, too.
>
>In this case I guess simlu would mean "x1 seems-to-be-actual/real",
>in which case there;s no need to restrict it to event abstractions.
>For example "Lo cukta cu simlu mi" would mean "There seems to me
>to be a book". I'd be happy with that.

Intensionality again.  There seems to me to be "da poi mela iunikorn"
fails if there are no unicorns.  I think this one was changed as part of
the "sisku" change, for the same reason, except that it is useful to
have the object extractable from the ka abstraction to the main bridi
level for pragmatic reasons that are somewhat weaker for sisku.

>>>(7) galfi: x1 (event) modifies/alters/changes x2 into x3
>>>    stika: x1 (event) adjusts/changes x2 (ka/ni) in amount/degree x3
>>>I think the x1 place of these should be abolished.
>>>Galfi then becomes redundant with binxo:
>>>    binxo: x1 becomes/changes into x2 under conditions x3
>>>And I think binxo should have an extra place:
>>>    binxo: x1 changes from belonging to category (ka) x2
>>>      into belonging to category (ka) x3

Abolish a place so that the gismu can be deleted???  Whatever for?  If
you don't ever need/use the place of galfi/stika, just use binxo/cenba
instead.  But you either will need the former two, or will just recoin a
lujvo from binxo-rinka and/or cenba-rinka for the times when such is
useful.  (I will admit that these seemed more useful before sumti
raising forced these into event clause places, thus requiring a
gasnu/zukte instead/in addition to give the Lojban for "The witch
changed the prince into a frog." and "The operator adjusted the speed of
the engine."

Again, Zipf demands shorter lujvo when possible, even when this causes
'redundancy'. 14 galfi lujvo, 29 binxo lujvo, 7 cenba lujvo, 5 stika
lujvo thus totalling 2% of our lujvo base (it was even higher in TLI
Loglan, and probably eventually will be for us).

>>>I think some new but related meaning should be found for galfi,
>>>such as:
>>>    galfi: x1 evolves from (ka) x2 into (ka) x3 under conditions/
>>>      constraints x4 [e.g. natural selection]

too much like farvi, and having nothing to do with agentive modification
unless you mean that your x4 is the current x1 of galfi (which might
actually be true - in which case your complaint about the current x1 is
really strange since you see it useful and meaningful when placed in a
different order and reworded slightly.

>>>(8) panci: x1 is an odor/fragrance/scent/smell emitted by x2
>>>           and detected by observer/sensor x3
>>>    sumne: x1 (experiencer) smells [transitive verb] x2;
>>>           x2 smells/has odor to observer x1
>>>    ganse: x1 [observer] senses/detects/notices/is aware of
>>>           stimulus x2 by means x3 under conditions x4
>>>    vrusi: x1 is a taste/flavor of x2
>>>(a) Given sumne, why does panci have this x3 place? Suppose
>>>I want to describe the smell of an unsmelt rose.

Like colors and flavors, there is considerable evidence of differences
among observers as to what is sensed by a smeller.

An odor that is unsensed is not a panci, and 'odor' to me implicitly
implies a detector.  In fact, I am not sure what it is if there is no
(potential) detector.

vrusi is not necessarily limited to things sensed by the tongue (no
sensor place), and hence could be used to describe the attar of a rose.
I think we did this because of considerable scientific evidence that the
senses of taste and smell are no independent.


>>>(b) Why does sumne lack a place for the odour?

Because it would then be redundant to panci, wouldn't it?

People talk about smelling things, don't they?

>>>(c) Why does 'vrusi' have no 'transitive' counterpart? I suppose
>>>we could have:
>>>    vrusi zei ganse: x1 tastes taste x2 of x3

Because it doesn't.  "vrusi ganse" is sufficient for those cases where
you want to talk about the detector (though as I note above, vrusi
doesn't necessarily omit smell-related properties).  I can see the
parallel to panci/sunme, and indeed may have argued for a parallel gismu
at one time, but was outvoted by the gismu minimalists.  There are
useful lujvo for vrusi (3 currently) and panci (1), but none yet for
sunme, and I can't think that anything based on vrusi would be more
useful based on an observer/detector place.  Generally, once we get past
the basic existence of the sensory apparatus, we tend to talk about
these things as if everyone tasted the same thing.

>>>But in this case, why bother with having sumne?

Historical reasons.  JCB had a similar word (sutme) meaning panci, and I
was adding just the sort of parallels that Jorge suggests in his reponse
to you.  It turned out that his word-making probably used the 'wrong'
meaning of smell, the detecting, when he used the word for the detected.

>>>(d) Unless I've misunderstood, I suggest dropping the x3 of panci,
>>>and dropping sumne altogether, using panci zei ganse instead.

We don't delete gismu merely because they aren't apparently useful.
(Repeat after me: "We don't..." %^)

>>>(9) Is there an agreed expression for look/appearance/ countance/visual
>>>stimulus, without there being an implied perceiver?

>> I'd say {jvinu}.
>
>Yes - I hadn't realized. (Gismu keywords are chosen to cunningly
>disguise the extensive patterns among gismu.)

Well, gismu keywords were chosen for use in LogFlash, where uniqueness
was more important than accuracy or pattern-recognition (even if we had
fully recognized the patterns back then).  Of course we expected a
dictionary to replace the keywords as a way to look up based on English
words a LONG time ago. (I'm really close now!!!  Just don't go making me
change any place structures at the last minute...)

jvinu gives something like this, but I am not sure what it means to have
a visual stimulus (or any other kind of stimulus) unless there is
something to be stimulated.  Sounds and light and textures exist whether
they are perceived - they are physical phenomena.  So do flavors.  You
seem to be trying to talk about perceived properties while implying that
those properties are observer-independent.  (I sense a simsa connection
in here somewhere).

>>Let's see:  jvinu  sance  panci  vrusi  tengu
>>            viska  tirna  sumne  ?????  pencu
>>
>>Definitely, there's something missing.

Let's try
observer ind. | jvinu  sance      vrusi        tengu
              | gusni
observer dep.                 panci molpanci?
sense           viska  tirna  sumne molsumne?  pencu

Note that pencu doesn't tell what texture is felt, viska is worded
ambiguously as to whether the x2 is the emitter of the light or the
light itself, and tirna likewise for the sound vs. sound maker.
I'm not sure this is a problem, and am unlikely to bother trying to solve
it at this late date.  At worst, I think we have a metonymy situation,
which is one degree less complicated than sumti-raising.

>>>(10) tirna:  x1 hears x2 against background/noise x3 Could x3 be
>>>abolished, please?  Otherwise, when there's no background noise we'll
>>>have to remember to use "xohe" (or whatever the sumti-abolishing cmavo
>>>is).

That is "background/noise", not "background noise".  A silent background
is not the same as no background.  The background can affect what is
heard.  The parallel statements are true for colors - there is always a
background, and it can affect what is perceived.

>>>(11) Is there a standard expression for 'saliva'?

>>The list gives molselpu'u, but I guess you don't like it. I can't
>>think of anything better.
>
>I thought I might have overlooked a gismu. A better lujvo is
>molselcigle.

molselcigla, and I can put it to Nick for possible addition (if he gets
time) to the lujvo list.  He has several hundred others in his queue as
well, with more added everytime you guys write in Lojban.  (.i'ecai doi
la goran. .e la ken. .e la xorxes.)