From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 08 18:25:38 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DK4j4-0001qs-Hn
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:25:30 -0700
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.197])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DK4j2-0001qI-Aq
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:25:30 -0700
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so1107724wri
        for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=EUyr0dN55Ie6AbEwH+dGZBioXRVP3e9cJTSF8KjJoJOm8CQOj6DkvW8WhY0GkKmkkQObEXpq4Xr1he5to32ZIzrwa6mMOzH4kcHfN71pw2MHDIeMbHKrgB4rhSvmtVdc2mpxqN7eeR/0Dr5kP4Vr4nXof5l8Mh2Y0RPLgBLWWYo=
Received: by 10.54.40.34 with SMTP id n34mr105000wrn;
        Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.69.3 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <925d175605040818246a0bb9e1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:24:57 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Semantics of lojban and glibau, and Lojban FrameNet revisited
In-Reply-To: <JNEIJCJJHIEAILJBFHILMECDEHAA.ben@goertzel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <JNEIJCJJHIEAILJBFHILKECCEHAA.ben@goertzel.org>
	 <JNEIJCJJHIEAILJBFHILMECDEHAA.ben@goertzel.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 9802
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Apr 8, 2005 7:24 PM, Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> Taking this kind of approach to defining argument structures would seem to
> reduce the risk of odd inconsistencies occurring in the dictionary of
> argument-structures... I'm curious why a systematic approach like this
> wasn't taken in constructing the Lojban dictionary, since Lojbanoidic folks
> seem so interested in order and systematicity... it's odd that the
> argument-structures are only imperfectly and informally systematized, no?

In the particular case of culture words, their place structures are fortunately
very systematic. It's always: "x1 reflects XXXXX
culture/nationality/language/...
in aspect x2". I don't think there are any exceptions. {lojbo} has the same
structure as {glico} and so presumably lujvo made with them will also
have parallel structures. You just happened to pick a cmevla for Lojban and 
a lujvo for English, but you could have used cmevla for both or lujvo for both 
if you wanted to.

But the point is valid in general: gismu place structures have some truly
odd inconsistencies that are hard to explain, so instead of learning some
tens of patterns of place structures we have to learn hundreds.

Just as an example: words for living things have the very regular place 
structure "x1 is a XXXX of breed/race/species/variety/strain/cultivar/type x2".
But there are a few inexplicable exceptions that have to be learned
separately.

mu'o mi'e xorxes