From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:59:10 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 21546 invoked from network); 1 Nov 1996 14:31:22 -0000 Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 1 Nov 1996 14:31:22 -0000 Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.32311004@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 15:31:20 +0100 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 09:28:09 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: CONLANG: LISP representation of "deep structure" To: Lojban List Content-Length: 8162 Lines: 359 Message-ID: On the CONLANG list , I posted the following response to TImothy Miller, who was attempting to create a LISP-like representation of the (semantic) structure of language. I pointed out that most of the examples he posted went word-for-word into Lojban. Here's my posting: Timothy Miller scripsit: > Here are some incomplete thoughts that express structure: Except for being verb-first, this *is* Lojban. And Lojban can tag the subject with "fa" when it appears after the verb. Here are Lojban translations using that style: with few exceptions, they mirror your structures exactly. > "to run slowly" > (slow run) masno bajra > "red apple" > (red apple) xunre plise > "appleish red thing" > (apple red) plise xunre > "to be able to run" > (can run) Lojban reverses this: bajra kakne. In the sentence "John is able to run", we are expressing that John has a running type of ability, not an ability type of running (whatever that might be). > And here are some sentences of various types: > > "I run slowly" > ((slow run) i) masno bajra fa mi slow run (subject) I > "I can see you" > ((can see) i you) viska kakne fa mi do see is-able (subj) I you > "Jane sees John" > (see jane john) viska fa la djein. la djan. sees (subj.) (name) Jane (name) John > "I gave him an apple" > ((past give) i apple he) > OR > (past (give i apple he)) > [which one?] pu dunda fa mi lo plise ko'a (past) give (subj) I an/some apple(s) him meaning, of course, that I gave apples to him, not that I gave him to apples. If the number is really important, change "lo" to "pa" to get "one apple". > "Leave!" > (imp (leave you)) > OR > (leave ko) [a la lojban] > [which one?] cliva fa ko leave (subj) (imperative-you) > "Red apples are nice" > (nice (red (plural apple))) xamgu fa za'u xunre plise good (subj) more-than-(1) red apples > "Can you see me?" > (ques (see you i)) xu viska fa do mi (True?) see (subj) you me But this means "Do you see me?" The "possibility" element requires xu viska kakne fa do mi (True) see is-able (subj) you me > "Where are we?" > (((in _?_) exist) we) Lojban has a verb for "is-at", so zvati fa mi'o ma is-at (subj) we (what?) where "mi'o" specifically means "you and I, but not others". > "The cat runs up the tree" > (((up tree) run) (the cat)) > [how would you put this into past tense?] Lojban treats the destination of running as a place, so bajra klama fa le mlatu le trice runningly goes (subj) the cat the tree > "Don't eat" > (imp ((not eat) you)) > [imperative for whole sentence, just verb, or use 'ko' from Lojban?] na citka fa ko (It is false) eat (subj) (you-imperative) > "I don't eat" > ((not eat) i) na citka fa mi (It is false) eat (subj) I But this means only that on some unspecified occasion I didn't eat, whereas "I don't do X" in English usually means that I never do X, or that I habitually don't do X: noroi citka fa mi no-times eat (subj) I I never eat na ta'e citka fa mi (false) habitually eat (subj) I It is false that I habitually eat > "Eat cookies after dinner" > (imp (((after dinner) eat) you cookies)) > OR > (((after dinner) (imp eat)) you cookies) > OR > (((after dinner) eat) ko cookies) > [which one?] ba le vacysai citka fa ko loi cmalu titnanba in-future-of the dinner (lit. evening-meal) eat (subj) (you-imp) part-of-mass small cakes (lit. sweet-bread) > "Are you hungry?" > (ques (hungry you)) xu xagji fa do (True?) hunger (subj) you > "If I eat, then I'm full, otherwise I'm hungry" > (if (eat i) (full i) (hungry i)) > [note: "full" would actually be replaced by a proper indication of the > MEANING of full in context, ie. have had enough eat, or something] ganai citka fa mi gi cidja selmansi .ije ganai na citka gi xagji if eat (subj) I then food-type-of satisfied and if not eat then hungry where the subject is given only once and is understood the other three times. Other translations are possible. > "I'm hungry" > (hungry i) xagji fa do hunger (subj) I > "I am (being) seen" [someone sees me] > (see X i) viska fa da mi see (subj) something me > "What sees me" > (see ? i) viska fa ma mi see (subj) (what?) me > "Are you hungry?" > (ques (hungry you)) > OR xu xagji fa do (True?) hunger (subj) you > "Who is hungry?" > (fill-in (hungry ?)) > OR xagji fa ma hunger (subj) (what?) > (hungry ?) > [If a computer were to parse this, would it be good to indicate that the > sentence is a fill-in-the-blank question before hand, in addition to the > blank?] xu xagji (True?) hunger Is the obvious person hungry? After all, there is really no need to say "Are you hungry?" except that English verbs need subjects. Lojban sentences don't, so "Hungry?" is plenty. Whose hunger would you be asking about, normally, except the listener's? (Of course, there are contexts like "Is Fido hungry?" as well.) > lojban: "ko (speak) ko" > (speak ko ko) > [ie. speak to yourself, and allow yourself to speak to you] tavla fa ko ko speak (subj) you-imp you-imp > "Where do we eat?" > (((in ?) eat) we) citka vi ma fa mi'a/ma'a eat near (what?) (subj) we "mi'a" excludes the listener, and means "I and others", whereas "ma'a" means "you and I and others". > "it is imperative that john eat a sandwich" > (imp (eat joe sandwich)) > [which is similar in meaning to] Lojban doesn't have a direct representation of these third-person imperatives. You can say "must eat" or the like. > "make joe eat a sandwich" > (cause ko (eat joe sandwitch)) gasnu fa ko le nu citka fa la djos. lo snuji agent (subj) you-imp (the event-of eats (subj) (name) Joe a/some sandwich(es)) > (if (? dog) (...)) > [I wrote this down when discussing with a friend, but I don't remember > what it means] This too can be said in Lojban: ganai gerku fa ma gi co'e if dog (subj) (what?) then the-obvious-claim What is it that if it is a dog, then the obvious sentence is true? > "A dog runs now" > ((present run) dog) ca bajra fa lo gerku (present) runs (subj) a/some dog(s) > "I run in the park" > (((in (the park)) run) i) bajra vi le panka fa mi run at-location the park (subj) I > "The unhappy me eats chocolate" or "I eat chocolate when I'm not happy" > (eat ((not happy) i) chocolate) citka fa mi poi to'e gleki ku'o loi cakla eat (subj) I such-that( opposite-of happy ) part-of-mass-of chocolate Note the use of "to'e" (other than) rather than "na" (false) here, as well as the explicit "poi ... ku'o" relative clause. > (run (happy i)) > [what does this mean?] bajra fa mi poi gleki run (subj) I such-that happy "The happy me runs." > "the smiling dog runs" > (run (smile dog)) > [ie. smile participle. When a sentence is used as a noun, in english > surface structure, the verb will become a participle, I think] bajra fa le cisma gerku runs (subj) the smile-type-of dog or bajra fa le gerku poi cisma runs (subj) the dog such-that runs > "I'm faster than you" > ((comp fast) i you) sutra zmadu fa mi do fast exceeds (subj) I you I exceed you in fast-ness. > "I am big" > (big i) barda fa mi big (subj) I > "I am John" > (equal i john) du fa mi la djan. = (subj) I (name) John. But this means that I am identical with some John or other than you know. It might be appropriate in response to "Which of you is John?" More normal versions of the English sentence are: cmene fa zo djan. mi is-name-of (subj) the-word "John" me "John" is the name of me. mi'e djan. I-am John. where "mi'e is a self-vocative particle. > Let's see what we can do with this. :) Read ftp://ftp.access.digex.net/pub/access/lojbab/draft-reference-grammar to see what we have already done with it. :-) If you get tired of saying "fa" in every sentence, move the subject before the verb and insert "cu" between them. You can leave off the "cu" if the subject is a pronoun, and in some other cases too. When it comes to Lisp-style languages that are (as And says) "in-your-facely compositional", Lojban has the area sewed up, methinks. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban