From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Aug 16 13:17:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 16145 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2005 20:17:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2005 20:17:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2005 20:17:22 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E57s9-0002KL-Qb for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:17:22 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E57rN-0002Jd-Ik; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E57r6-0002JU-4z for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:16 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.80]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E57r2-0002JN-5k for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:16 -0700 Received: (qmail 7464 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Aug 2005 20:16:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20050816201610.7462.qmail@web81305.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.32.165] by web81305.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:10 PDT Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 10391 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=Y6_BWDN5tLFfDuYMIdqODQaNnz4VIbWsDd_49ykaTxKQw4jROg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24770 --- Ben Goertzel wrote: > > Hi, > > > On 8/16/05, Ben Goertzel > wrote: > > > For instance, I was thinking about > something like a "queh" > > > reference-indicator, to be used as in > > > > > > "Lo man go lo playground. It queh man kill > lo dog. It eat lo cat." > > > > > > ("The man goes to the playground. He kills > the dog. He eats the cat.") > > > > I think you need {cu} in front of "go" and > "kill", otherwise > > you get tanru: "lo man go" would be "the man > goer" and > > "man kill" would be "man killer". > > Correct, sorry... > > > Also "go" could be confused with the cmavo > {go}. > > That is a more frustrating problem... > > In writing one could solve it by some awkward > mechanism like > > "Lo man cu _go lo playground" > > I don't think it occurs often because very few > cmavo are English words > > In speech I can't think of a non-annoying way > to solve it... except by > outlawing/replacing > those few English words that overlap with > cmavo, e.g. replacing "go" with > "proceed" > > "Lo man cu proceed lo playground" > > or with "eng_go" (enggo?), > > "Lo man cu enggo lo playground" > > ;-p Yuck indeed > > > The idea here is that "it" is used as a > generic referential > > indicator, but > > > "queh" is used to precede a qualitative > indicator of what the > > "it" refers > > > back to. Then, subsequent uses of "it" are > assumed to keep > > referring back > > > to the same referent, until another use of > "it" coupled with "queh" > > > ooccurs... > > > > That's just how Lojban {goi} works. > > Hmmm... I'm not sure it's exactly the same. > > I think my example was not sufficiently > evocative, though. > > For instance, in my intended usage, you could > say > > "la Dr. Benjamin Goertzel cu enggo lo > playground. It queh man cu kill lo > dog. It cu eat lo cat. > > In this case, "It" is defined to refer to "Dr. > Benjamin Goertzel", not to > "man" generically. Well, this is a nice bit of editing, but is it one that AI can universally do, that is, identify what in the neighborhood falls appropriately under "man" (in the sense "male" of course)and what falls under female and so on. There are any number of "genders" as the need arises -- including some that somehow cut across the "natural" ones, to separate Flash from Ming in the everpopular "Ming walked up to Flash. He struck him." Indeed, such a system of gendered pronouns is one of the shorter solution to Lojban problem with reference. The use of letters as pronouns (a nice old Logical habit that) is the usual version of it, but runs afoul of 1) two words in context with the same initial letter 2) at a distance it is harder to remember how a thing was referred to than what thing it was (for both speaker and hearer). these are relatively minor problems compared to remembering the exact position in the tree of a referrence three sentences back -- or even on a different branch in the present sentence, as the most precise Lojban system would have it. Of course, as the old joke goes, "Repetition is also anaphora" but we would like something at least as good as English and better if possible. Indeed, perfect if possible: speaker could refer pronominally uniquely to anything mentioned before and still in his scenario and hearer -- assuming he has been paying attention (kept up with the scenario) could retrieve the correct referent. Of course, we can do this with forethought {goi}, but we usually don't forethink and we often don't keep enough track of what is said to get back to the way the initial referent was made (did he call it a dog or a mutt or...?), let alone exactly where that reference fit into the sentence structure, to reclaim things by these guidelines. The suggestion of using an approximation (well it was called a canine of some sort so a pronoun flagged "canine" is probably about it) is helpful, though hardly an improvement on (partial) reptition (the yellow-and-black dog" repeated as "the dog" or even "the yellow thing"). > The "man" qualifier following the "queh" is > intended to merely *guide the > listener's mind* toward the right antecedent > for the pronoun. It's not > intended to *explicitly define* the pronoun. > So, basically > > "It queh man" > > is the rough equivalent of the English "he", > and > > "It queh woman" > > is the rough equivalent of the English "she" > > Is there an equivalent of "queh" in this sense > in Lojban? Nope. But somehting like it might help. > > Lojban also has {fi'o}, which is just like > your "quu", except > > for word order: "lo pliers quu weapon" = > {fi'o -weapon lo -pliers} > > (or rather {fi'o xarci lo cinza}.) > > Yes, I guess that is right... > > http://www.lojban.org/en/publications/reference_grammar/chapter9.html > > (I think I didn't encounter that one in Lojban > for Beginners, or maybe it > was there and I didn't remember it...) > > > And while {zei} is not exactly the same as > "qui", since you > > don't have lujvo in Loglish you could use it > for that. > > That is a good suggestion. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.