Message-Id: <199510211403.KAA28042@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sat, 21 Oct 1995 06:59:12 -0700
Reply-To: MarkLVines@EWORLD.COM
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Mark L. Vines" <MarkLVines@EWORLD.COM>
Subject:      Incredible!
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la and spuda mi di'e
> > I admire the rafsi principle, which is elegantly & beautifully
> > expressed in Lojban.
>
> Even allowing for intersubjective variability, I find such
> sentiments incredible.

At first, reading this comment of And's, I assumed that And had not read
my posting with adequate care.

I thought of making a dismissive reply. "I too would find such sentiments
incredible," I thought I'd say, "if I were unaware of the original
context, in which I was presenting a _complaint_ about rafsi in Lojban.

"Forms of politeness vary," I thought I'd continue.  "Perhaps the custom
of 'starting every complaint with a compliment' is unknown to you."

You see, my primary intent had been to complain about something I was
calling the rafsi-cmavo anomaly:

> Unfortunately, out of the 392 rafsi which have phonologically
> identical twin cmavo, about 295 (by my current estimate) are
> apparently unrelated in both meaning and derivation.  For example,
> fe'i is the rafsi for female but the cmavo for divided by; ti'u is
> the rafsi for daughter but the cmavo for a time stamp.

However, as I worked on the phrasing of the dismissive reply I was
planning, I realized that my opening compliment would have to be defended
-- even tho it was just the prelude to a complaint.  So I began looking
yet again at rafsi in Lojban, hoping to bolster that defense.  As I
looked, the truth gradually became clear.

And was right & I was wrong.  Horribly wrong.  As wrong as I've been
about anything in years.

The rafsi suffer from several very serious defects & problems.  Here is a
partial list, with only a few examples of each:

  1
* cmavo & rafsi identical in form
   but unrelated in meaning:
    da'a (all except), da'a => damba (fight);
     mo'i (space motion), mo'i => morji (remember).

(That was the only problem I'd recognized before, & I'd underestimated
its seriousness.  It's really a form of homophone ambiguity -- & Lojban
is supposed to be free of such ambiguity.)

  2
* cmavo & rafsi identical in meaning
   but different in form:
    da'a (all except), daz => da'a (all except);
     mo'i (space motion), mov => mo'i (space motion).

(As you can see, the same forms & meanings are sometimes involved in both
type 1 & type 2 defects.  What a mess!  You'd think that, if the cmavo
da'a really needed a rafsi, it could have one identical to itself, but
no!  It has daz instead, while the rafsi da'a belongs to the gismu damba.
 Logical?  Not!)

  3
* gismu whose meanings ought to be "affixable"
   but which lack rafsi:
    matra (motor); vidni (video); risna (heart).

(There are, by my current estimate, some 238 gismu which lack rafsi; but
not all of them have meanings which ought to be "affixable.")

  4
* gismu whose meanings need not be "affixable"
   but which do have rafsi:
    smo => smoka (sock); bik => bikla (whip);
     rig => rigni (disgusting).

  5
* gismu whose meanings ought to be "suffixable"
   but which have only non-suffixable CVC rafsi:
    meb => mebri (brow); run => rutni (artifact);
     tab => tabno (carbon).

  6
* rafsi with parallel forms but which are derived
   from dissimilar valsi:
    cme => cmene (name); zme => guzme (melon);
     gu'a => gunka (work); bu'a => bruna (brother).

  7
* gismu with parallel forms but which are contracted
   into dissimilar rafsi:
    cabna (now) <= cab; zabna (favorable) <= zan, za'a;
     senci (sneeze) <= sec; denci (tooth) <= den, de'i.

In fact, I found so many rafsi problems that I now favor scrapping the
whole rafsi-lujvo system & starting over.  At the very least, we should
discard those 295 rafsi, each of which is identical in form to some cmavo
but unrelated to it in meaning.  Would you folks agree with that?

Also, I owe And a word of thanks for disillusioning me with regard to the
"elegance" & "beauty" of rafsi in Lojban.  How, you may ask, did I ever
acquire that illusion in the first place?  As it happens, I _have_
reconstructed the answer to that question, & I'm willing to discuss it if
anyone is interested.  But my personal mental life must remain a
secondary concern here.  More importantly:

Can the rafsi defects & problems still be corrected?

If they are not corrected, can Lojban serve all its various functions?

No doubt these questions have been raised before.  (Believe me, I'm aware
of my newbie status -- all the more so after making such a big mistake!)
But have these questions been answered before?  If so, what are the
answers, & are you folks satisfied with them?

co'o mi'e mark,l