From @gate.demon.co.uk,@uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 08 21:49:01 1995 Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3302 ; Thu, 08 Jun 95 21:48:59 BST Received: from punt.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 08 Jun 95 04:42:19 GMT Received: from gate.demon.co.uk by punt.demon.co.uk id aa20638; 8 Jun 95 5:41 +0100 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by gate.demon.co.uk id ab25559; 7 Jun 95 20:46 GMT-60:00 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2369; Wed, 07 Jun 95 15:42:45 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5097; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:00:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:56:50 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: more gismu comments from Jorge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506072046.ab25559@gate.demon.co.uk> Status: R >Why >does {xamgu} have a standard but {xlali} doesn't? Why does Jorge have a bad gismu list? Mine has an x3 standard for both. > Why does {xanka} have >"under conditions" but {gleki} doesn't? This is the best of your 4 critiques this time %^) It seems less obvious and more important in the case of xanka that the conditions under which one might feel the emotion are distinct from the conditions involved in the event about which one feels the emotion (i.e. the same place inside the sumti clause) Perhaps my understanding of happiness (which became embedded in Lojban) is that it can be unconditional, whereas anxiety is conditional. >Why does {curmi} have "under conditions" but not {gasnu}? curmi: like xanka, the conditions tend to relate to the x1's state of mind, while conditions might also be found inside the sumti clause being permitted, that are unrelated to the state of mind. Why should gasnu? You either ARE an agent, or you are NOT. I don't see much basis for this comparison. >Why does {cpedu} have "in manner" but {dunda} doesn't? One is a predominantly physical action - and it is the action that makes it "dunda". "cpedu" involves a mental state on the part of the requestor, being communicated to the recipient. It thus is far more akin to cusku, in that the medium of requesting (which need not be linguistic) has significant effect on whether the request is understood as such. Again, it seems like you are comparing plise and narju (a contrast that makes much more sense in Lojban than in English, since narju is not necessarily a fruit) %^) I touch on a related argument in another post responding to And on fuzzy categories. Later in the thread, Dylan: >Do you think we could organize a rebellion :-)? (No, I'm not really >proposing another split. I am half-seriously contemplating listing my >own versions of various gismu with texts I write.) Not funny. If people do not accept the language standard before it is promulgated, it will probably never be promulgated. i.e. IFF I publish a dictionary, then at the time of publishing and for a while thereafter, there will be a baseline. Only when the community is large enough and stable enough (which will probably not happen before there is a dictionary) will it be possible to trust natural linguistic processes. Under the latter, individual "revolts", or misuses of a word, either intentionally or erroneously, tend not to make changes in the language. Natural linguistic change tends to be a more spontaneous process. It is only willingness to accept a prescription until the language becomes stable that gives any constructed language a chance to achieve any durability without splintering into individual dialects. LLG would probably not publish texts with non-standard place structures. (This doesn't stop others from publishing their own texts, or even their own dictionary or grammar - we aren't JCB, and you are welcome to do so - but we hope you will not publish in contradiction to our prescription.) >But that's too cumbersome, and we can't have each user using their own >version of the language. I prefer that they be gradually forgotten by >the collective memory... :) This is the preferred approach. Again not funny. If people gradually forget a place, then at some uncertain point (fuzzy logic here %^) it will cease to be part of the place structure. lojbab