From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Mar 27 06:33:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 84894 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2006 14:33:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Mar 2006 14:33:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2006 14:33:52 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNsme-0001KU-SN for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:33:29 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNsl0-0001Jk-Fc; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:31:49 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNskJ-0001JW-Fm for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:31:04 -0800 Received: from web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.125]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNskB-0001JG-Le for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:31:00 -0800 Received: (qmail 966 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Mar 2006 14:30:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20060327143054.964.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:30:54 PST Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:30:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560603270521n425653f4u8de39e9b4497e671@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11255 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: -0.6 (/) 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: semantic primes can define anything X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=ifhGWl9Xs1rpEUCsG5kSPmjnKzf0muTzOCZN-QqdceZT_NEwQg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25665 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/26/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > --- Jorge Llambías > wrote: > > > > > The essential thing in this context was > that > > > the > > > prime FEEL does not have a Lojban > equivalent, > > > that > > > Lojban splits this prime in two: {cinmo} > and > > > {ganse}. > > > > Well, neither of them fits very well: {cinmo} > is > > explicitly about emotions, with the rpoblems > > noted; {ganse} wants a stimulus. How does > one > > say "I feel (something) bad"? > > "I feel bad" could be {mi cortu} or {mi dunku}, > but we'd > need more context. There is no general "feel" > in Lojban that > covers both emotions and sensations. > The locution seems always to be "I feel something good/bad" I suppose {ganse}comes closer to this than {cinmo} but that is arguable and neither works very well. It seems Lojban has nothing for sensations at all. > > > Other primes that Lojban seems to split are > for > > > example THINK into {pensi} and {jinvi}, > > > > this seems to be clearly {jinvi} "think > > something about something," there is some > > discussion of a need to divide it into "think > > something" and "think about." Incidentally, > why > > does Lojban have two words here? > > At least the paraphrase for "loves" seems to > use both: > > X often thinks about Y > X thinks good things about Y > > X so'i roi pensi Y > X jinvi lo zabna Y > > The first one does not say that X often has > opinions about Y, > but that Y is often on X's mind. But can one have someone on one's mind without some proprositional content? As far as I can see -- from a logical point of view, mind you, not NSM -- {jinvi} should not have a third place (it creates all kinds of problems and is an artifact of English idiom) and {pensi} is then just {jinvi tu'a}. NSM seems to want {jinvi} with the common case of dropping the x2. > > HAPPEN > > > into {fasnu} and {se lifri} > > > > Mainly {se lifri} the line seems laways to be > > "Something happens to something." > > So the sense of {fasnu} would not be prime? Apparently not. I don't have cases and the talk suggests that it is always "Something happens to something," never "Such and such happens" (indeed, the grammar for English NSM sentences doesn't allow an event noun phrase in place of "such and such"; the best one could get would be "This happens: such-and-such [as a full sentence]" Events tend to be unspecified with "happens" anyhow. > > and probably KNOW > > > into > > > {djuno} and {se slabu}. > > > > I can't find a {se slabu} case, but I have a > list > > of only a couple dozen cases. > > Right, it's hard to be sure from just the > keyword. Presumably this > has been worked out since this is not a > particularly Lojbanic > distinction. My guess is that it is clearly the {djuno} sense (wissen, saber, savoir, etc.) > > Not to mention the very > > > problematic HAVE. > > > > It seems to be the minimal "alienable use" > sense > > (which Lojban doesn't do to well), but I > can't > > find an example of it. > > Well, either Lojban doesn't do it well or > Lojban doesn't do it just > like English. If the English way is truly prime > and universal, then > Lojban doesn't do it well. I think that Lojban can do the lowest level English thing as well as all the more complicated ones, it is just that they are done by different predicates, rather than all by one. I've never worked out a list but there are all the particular "part" predicates in place of the "inalienable possession" sense, {ponse} for the strong legal sense, and Lord knows what all for the phases in between. > > > > I don't know what the Spanish prime > > > corresponding > > > to YOU is either. There are four > candidates: > > > "tú", "usted", "ustedes" and "vosotros", > and > > > it's hard > > > to say that there are no conceptual > differences > > > among > > > them. > > > > I think it has to be "usted," but again, I > don't > > have a case. > > I would have said "tú" if I was forced to pick > one, but I have > no idea how one decides which one is a prime > and which > one isn't. I picked "usted" as the most neutral form, although even it is distinctly singular, as English "you" is not. But I think the "you" in NSM is meant to be singular (again, no explicit cases, so the evidence here is indirect). > > > So the primes seem to fit English very well > but > > > other languages not so well. > > > > Well, it fits English well in the sense that > > there are English expressions that do > (sometimes) > > mean what is intended here (but it presumably > > fits Spanish in that way two, else some of > these > > "primes" would clearly not be primes). The > > problem is that all the English expressions > are > > polysemous and it is hard to pick out the > right > > one and be sure to use only it. > > So part of the problem is that they don't > manage to explain > their primes very well. Well, of course they are primes so they can't officially be explained at all. Still, some more examples would be useful. The only one I have actually seen that directly deals with this problem is a comment by Uwe Durst in his rebuttal article in Theoretical Linguistics 29.3, where he selects "He moves (a part of) his body" as giving the sense of MOVE in English (presumably the volitional twitch, not the "cause to be displaced" reading even here). 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.