From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Nov 13 08:39:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 13 Nov 2001 16:39:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 14049 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 16:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Nov 2001 16:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 16:39:53 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:16:15 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:52:12 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:51:51 +0000 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12089 >>> Jay Kominek 11/13/01 03:59pm >>> #On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Craig wrote: #> The gismu are fine. It's the rafsi that need work. And while we're at it= , #> can we get rid of selma'o? They are very misleading. the place structure= of #> selma'o is x2 is the grammatical class containing particle x1 - meanin= g #> that by calling them both UI we put xu and .ui in the same grammar class= . #> they play extremely different roles. .ui expresses a feeling. xu makes #> questions. Sounds the same to me! # #Can you construct a sentence where replacing a .ui with xu makes it #_grammatically_ incorrect? # #Can you construct a sentence where replacing a xu with .ui makes it #_grammatically_ incorrect? # #If the answer to both of these is "no", then they are in the same #grammatical catagory no matter how much you want to complain about it. # #se cmavo are only a grammatical distinctions, and indicate very little #about semantic function. I think part of the problem is that Lojban has a much narrower definition of 'grammar' and 'grammatical' than is normal in linguistics and than is normally included within the 'grammar' of natural languages. This is not necessarily a Mistake, because an invented language is a different sort of creature from a natural language. At any rate, the role of a grammar is normally taken to be the rules that define a mapping from phonological structures to sentence meanings; the grammar generates all the well-formed sentences of the language, where sentences are defined as pairings between meanings and phonological forms. Lojban 'grammar' does something totally different: it defines a set of phonological strings and structurings of the words therein, but says=20 nothing about their meanings. Natural language simply has no analogue of this 'pseudogrammar'. So Craig's complaint is really that Lojban 'grammar' is not defined/described as a natlang grammar is, and the replies from Jay and pc are unfair, in that they invoke a Lojban-specific notion of 'grammar'.=20 My answer to Craig is that a true grammar of Lojban would take=20 many many more years to develop, and the only choice was to baseline nothing or to baseline the thing that is called 'the Lojban grammar'. Further, the inventors of Lojban had to choose between, on the one hand, developing a proper grammar slowly, incrementally=20 and unsystematically, and, on the other hand, getting the pseudogrammar fixed and baselined, and leaving the true grammar (including all issues concerning meaning) to evolve over the subsequent years. Hence I would advise Craig not to complain about the pseudogrammar, but instead to accept that a true grammar has yet to be created. --And.