From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Apr 04 11:04:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 91212 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2005 18:04:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Apr 2005 18:04:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2005 18:04:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DIVwR-0006BC-AL for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:04:51 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DIVwD-0006Ai-CJ; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:04:43 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DIVvz-0006AV-7I for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:04:23 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DIVvr-00069T-54 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:04:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20050404180343.42422.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:43 PDT Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9762 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: tanru X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24118 --- opi_lauma wrote: > > > > Yes, tanru are vague by nature. > > Does it mean that "la tam. melbi tavla la > meris" being without context > (I mean without any previous text) cannot be > translated just as "Tom > beautifully-talks to Mary". Because in this > case one loses some of the > possible meanings. Well, that assumes that "beautifully-talks" has a clear meaning in English, which is just not the case, though it may exclude some possibilities. > It means that "la tam. melbi > tavla la meris" should > be translated in this case as "Tom is a > beautiful-talker to Mary." Also not clear in English. > Really in this case it is not clear in which > sense Tom is beautiful > (as speaker or not), it is also not clear how > he is "related" with > Marry (whether he is beautiful for Mary or he > speak to Merry) This is at least clear: {la meris} is an argument to {tavla}, not (necessarily) to {melbi}. In a tanru only the last brivlq functions with unmarked arguments. To attach {la meris} to {melbi} only would take {be la meris} right after the {melbi}; to attaach it to both would require that they be internally joined in some way, {melbi je tavla}, say. > So, > having such sentence with less definite meaning > we could reproduce > vagueness of the initial lojban sentence. > > Is this vagueness of the considered sentence > are documented in > official lojban grammar or may be it is just > "projection" of the > corresponding English translation? The Lojban sentnence is vague (or ambiguous) in ways that are not natural for the various vague English translations. The problem is Lojban internal and is discussed in CLL, though it can never be dsicussed as fully as we might feel the need for: Chapter 5, especially section 16, deals with the issue. >Actually I > see no necessity to > approve the considered vagueness on the > grammatical level. I see no > necessity to have a possibility to construct > sentences with the given > type of vagueness. From my point of view it > would be better to > postulate that (for example): > > "sumti1 selbri2 selbri1 sumti2" = "lo nu sumti1 > selbri1 sumti2 cu selbri2" > It is > "la tam. melbi tavla la meris" = "lo nu la tam > tavla la meris cu melbi". Yes, this is a common one, but probably not significantly more common than {sumti1 brivla2 brivla1 sumti2} = {sumti1 brivla1 sumti2 lo brivla2}, for example. Your case has the advantage of being most like the most common (?) corresponding forms in English and other familiar languages, where the pattern is Adverb+Verb.