Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:12:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710222012.PAA18557@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com Sender: Lojban list From: Mark Vines Subject: Re: The design of Lojban X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3518 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 22 15:13:51 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU coi doi lobypli It's true, as several have pointed out, that I was exaggerating when I claimed that Lojban doesn't let you say certain things, like "women interest me" or "I'm defending my country". All such things can be said in Lojban using tanru, lujvo, sumti- raising or (in the worst case) fu'ivla. However, Lojban does raise barriers against saying such things simply. Also, the barriers in question often seem arbitrary, gratuitous or IMO even perverse. ===================================================================== = It's been suggested that I should use {trina} instead of {cinri} to describe an interest in non-abstract sumti like women or music. I have four problems with this: (1) If you search the gi'uste in an attempt to find a Lojbanic translation for the English word "interesting", that search will promptly yield the result {cinri}; &, *except for the prohibition against non-abstract sumti*, everything about the gi'uste definition of {cinri} corresponds to the English word "interesting". (2) It's possible to be interested in something, like psycho- pathology, without feeling any attraction for it. (3) What property do people (& other non-abstract sumti) have that allows them to be attractive but that doesn't allow them to be interesting? Or how is the {cinri} relation logico- semantically incompatible with human sumti, when the {trina} relation is fully compatible? Why does the x1 place of {cinri} have to be filled by an abstraction, when the equivalent place of {trina} does not? (4) I know what it means for one sumti to interest another, & what it means for one sumti to attract another, but this kind of knowledge doesn't help me to predict when abstraction is required in a gismu place structure & when it is not. Lojban doesn't seem to offer any rhyme, reason or consistency on this point. ===================================================================== = It's been suggested that when we think of a person defending something, we're not really thinking of the {bandu} concept. I have three problems with this: (1) If you search the gi'uste in an attempt to find a Lojbanic translation for the English word "defend", that search will promptly yield the result {bandu}; &, *except for the prohibitions against non-event sumti*, everything about the gi'uste definition of {bandu} corresponds to the English word "defend". (2) What property do people (& other non-event sumti) have that disqualifies them from participating in the x1 & x3 places of {bandu}? Or how is the {bandu} relation logico-semantically incompatible with human sumti in those places? Why do the x3 place of {bandu} & the x2 place of {snura} have to be filled with events, when the x3 place of {kajde} can be an event, a state or a property, & when the x1 place of {ckape} & the x3 place of {marbi} can be filled with a non-abstract sumti? (3) How could I have used my knowledge of what it means to warn, defend, shelter & be secure to predict these requirements? Again, Lojban doesn't seem to offer any rhyme, reason or consistency on this point. ===================================================================== = These & similar questions & problems can be frustrating for some Lojban learners. However, in calling attention to them, I don't want to adopt, or to inspire, an overly critical attitude. Lojban is far from unique in being unpredictably different from English. & I do feel that, on balance, Lojban lowers more barriers than it raises. co'omi'e markl.