Received: from access1.digex.net (qlYBsVTekvXHY@access1.digex.net [205.197.245.192]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id OAA00555 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 14:08:12 -0400 Received: (from lojbab@localhost) by access1.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02683 ; for cowan@ccil.org; Fri, 4 Aug 1995 11:44:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 11:44:54 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199508041544.LAA02683@access1.digex.net> To: cowan@ccil.org Subject: misc forwarded mail Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Aug 4 14:08:15 1995 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab@access.digex.net I don't know how often you are over here on my account, but I saved a message for you the other day, and it iss still here, so I will forward it to you. lojbab From arktech@clark.net Fri Jul 28 11:09:28 1995 Received: from clark.net (arktech@clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09376; for ; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 11:09:24 -0400 Received: (arktech@localhost) by clark.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id LAA20808; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 11:09:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 11:09:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Crawford @ ArkTech" To: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Divided by a common language (was: WORD ORIGINS AND USAGE ...) In-Reply-To: <199507281427.KAA18831@access5.digex.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: R On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Logical Language Group wrote: > > -- Jonathan Crawford > > Britain and the United States: Two countries divided by a common language. > > (Oscar Wilde?) > > George Bernard Shaw, actually. > > -- > John Cowan sharing account for now > e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Thank you! I've used that quote a few times, and I've always been frustrated by not knowing who to properly attribute it to! -- Jonathan Crawford From PDoudna@aol.com Sat Jul 29 18:11:57 1995 Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com (mail04.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.53]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08993; for ; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 18:11:54 -0400 From: PDoudna@aol.com Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA150395883; Sat, 29 Jul 1995 18:11:23 -0400 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 1995 18:11:23 -0400 Message-Id: <950729181122_43597879@aol.com> To: lojbab@access.digex.net Subject: Re: Lojban Status: R This is in response to e-mail from July 25. I was assuming that you had access to Lognet 95/1. That is where the first part of this letter was printed. The second part must be interpreted in that context. The previous letters in Lognet are not especially relevant. <<>> Your statement about "your" deep structure, suggests that you see deep structure as personal to individuals, and I don't think that is Chomsky's claim. Rather, he claims that each grammatical expression in a language has *A* deep structure which is more or less invariant with respect to context. <<>> The terms "surface structure" and "deep structure" are metaphors, which may be subject to some difference in interpretation. I see deep structure as being subjective to some extent. Basically it is an analysis using a structure that is not clearly evident in the language that one sees or hears directly without analysis. Deep structure is an intellectual tool which can be useful in interpreting a language string. Obviously people have been interpreting language correctly long before they ever heard of deep structure. There probably is no unique deep structure (as I would use the term) any more than there is a unique correct grammatical description of a given language. JCB apparently sees "cinta kicmu" as merely a juxtaposition of two words with a structure of AB. I see a distinctly different "deep structure" of (x who-is a-doctor) having-as-a-patient (y who-is a-baby) (x / B ) R (y / A) Another possibility is (x who-is a-doctor) who-is a-patient) (x / B) / A Thus I see a surface structure "AB" and two possible deep structures, "(x / B) R (y / A)", or "(x / B) / A". I don't mean to imply that my analysis is the only correct analysis, merely that it is an analysis that makes clear a type of distinction that we may wish to make. <<>> I am not sure what you mean by "more than one interpretation". Obviously "le blanu" (the blue-thing(s)) has many possible interpretations depending on which blue thing(s) is/are being referred to. But other than that distinction, there should be only *one* interpretation for the set of symbols that is a sentence about "le blanu". <<>> The preceding examples illustrate what I mean by "more than one interpretation". I am not referring to ambiguity of reference. I am not referring to lexical ambiguity (an attribute of one word) or to structural ambiguity (an attribute of at least 3 words). I am referring to word-pair ambiguity (an attribute of two words with an unspecified relationship). <<>> "Metaphor", or Lojban "tanru" refers in Loglan discussion to a specific type of semantic ambiguity, that of the variety of interpretations that can arise when two words are combined in a modifier/modificand pair. Thus "blue house" could mean a house that is entirely blue, inside and out, or one that is white with a few blue highlights, or (stretching) a green-painted house that is filled with blue objects, as distinguished from another green-painted house filled with yellow objects. <<>> What I called word-pair ambiguity is apparently what you refer to as "'metaphor' . . . a type of semantic ambiguity, that of the variety of interpretations that can arise when two words are combined in a modifier/modificand pair". In spite of the variations of precisely what is meant by "blue" when applied to "house", a blue house is always a house which is blue (in some sense). On the other hand, a brick house (except as far-fetched metaphor) is _not_ a house which is a brick. Thus in the first case the "deep structure" (as I use that term) is (x / B) / A and in the second case is (x / B) R (y / A). The first case may be imprecise (in the sense that all language is more or less imprecise) but the second case is strictly ambiguous, in that "R" is not specified in the surface structure. <<>> . . . Lojban in addition is more explicit about marking what is called "object raising", perhaps the one area where we recognize that the surface structure only approximates the deep structure. . . . <<>> At least you recognize a possible difference between surface structure and deep structure. You just see it's application as more restrictive. <<>> The correct term is grameme, and JCB has accepted that the term has been misused. But the actual difference to a non-technical person is rather small - it is a jargon word that has its own special connotations and denotation within the Loglan project. "-eme" as a suffix, means "most basic analytical subunit". Hence "grameme" is clearly "most basic analytical subunit of grammar". "lexeme" is only incorrect when Loglan computer analysis goes beyond assigning word-type to a word in the language. <<>> The term "grameme" makes sense in place of JCB's use of "lexeme". I prefer it to "form class" or "part of speech". But I have never seen this term used. Does it occur in linguistic literature or is it just a Lojban coinage? I don't think the question of jargon usage in unimportant -- unless Loglan and Lojban people are expected to avoid dictionaries or linguistics books. Paul Doudna