Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:13:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801121613.LAA03617@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: polysemy [Was: Re: & howabout ? (Was Knowledge & X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 520d991f04cadfe3c7d29e8ec086c509 Status: RO X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2333 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 16:03:20 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - To clarify, I consider a brivla polysemous if sometimes it means one thing and sometimes another. Translate bridi with {cucli} into logical form, and sometimes you'll need to use one method and another time another. Probably it leads to ambiguity sometimes. --&&& > >> It is in JCB's Loglan books. I think it is mentioned in the intro chapter > >> of Cowan's grammer as well. Could you give an example of an exception to > >> what is intended to be a core principle of the language? > > > >I can't give you examples of officially & wittingly countenanced > >exceptions. But in our discussions of the last few weeks we have > >found cases where polysemy was one possible solution to certain > >conflicts within grammar & usage. Off the top of my head, the only > >one I can remember is cucli ("curious"), where the meaning of cucli > >various according to the grammatical properties of its sumti > >(sdpecifically, iirc, whether x2 is a du`u clause containing {kau}). > > > >I've not studied the baselined giu`ste thoroughly, but I suspect that > >there is a lot of similar polysemy. > > Ah, now that you have explained yourself... > I agree that in some sense the variation in meaning between filling a place > with an abstraction vs an object might be consider polysemy. However, I > hope you will admit that the range of the meaning(s) is relatively small > and confined only the the relationship of that one place with the rest of > the predicate. The Loglan community has historically been rather blind about > abstractions vs. sumti raising as well, though I think we have gone several > major steps beyond JCB and indeed beyond natlangs in general in attending to > the issue and making it POSSIBLE to resolve it, should we ever have > fastidious enough speakers who can recognize when they are raising. > > AS for the specifics of including kau, we are aware and I think agreed that > the inclusion of many of the attitudinals and discursives can affect at > minimum the truth functional nature of a bridi. I have some heartburn at > a discursive opeing up polysemy if it happens (though I still think that in > the case you mentioned, the book simply has a sumti-raising error), but I > don't think that this is necessarily polysemy in the wordlist per se rather > than a complex effect of the cmavo causing the issue.