From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCs2oTeBBoE2vfr0w@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 19:00:42 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0mTS-0002xd-B8; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:42 -0700 Received: by vws14 with SMTP id 14sf440503vws.16 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=JR8VXc05dp9wRjd+NFpDHNlhpWE6Nfh7tsWGp4n3t/M=; b=abkGGQHICO7KXU6FRa6HQT6d13EU/PZ239fmHCANNsGFG/7bNt7zWz2n4VCbURzqpT IFAoaHX9CnHTW57p/6tRFVGW6kNytUyCtTfoEszc1RB/7eOG1QeoWZfsF0s62i7dMTB0 1y9PxzgSq5vvXeiWSkbrExDmIBYBByRDSIu5A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=Mcf63eK9bSAUKX4GfW54tI80P8jrJ498ZMueYNUmRLpOyo7sKBIhjUpq/Z15SWzARw 7w0hKIDipeh+24h3uBocIbehs1hwVh8KfX6S+I3Jq3fZ0ZduQpEe2wKWoMwu5qLW0cxk SPqzvnFZOIq7xEF6fzfmMX9sXRzApYat1SPT8= Received: by 10.220.124.66 with SMTP id t2mr145074vcr.3.1270951212063; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.174.133 with SMTP id t5ls434872vcz.2.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.4.37 with SMTP id 37mr540035vcp.16.1270951211174; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.4.37 with SMTP id 37mr540034vcp.16.1270951211148; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (qw-out-1920.google.com [74.125.92.149]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 29si7352819vws.2.2010.04.10.19.00.10; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.149 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.92.149; Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so562143qwc.28 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.91.212 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BBE188B.8070807@lojban.org> <4BC0355D.1010508@lojban.org> <4BC0B3CE.5040005@gmail.com> <8CCA6F068EC8210-1A3C-934F@webmail-d035.sysops.aol.com> <132833F1-0520-4DCB-BDDE-312E4376FCDA@gmail.com> <8CCA70C59E211E4-1AB8-1DCB3@Webmail-d124.sysops.aol.com> <324B71F9-826E-4042-BBEE-00B92F2315E4@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:00:09 -0300 Received: by 10.229.221.14 with SMTP id ia14mr3240920qcb.8.1270951209870; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban" From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.149 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/33d26e8385fed297 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/7c9dd51e97197e05 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM, tijlan wrote: > Also worth > noting is that, unlike Esperanto, Lojban isn't overtly specific about its > morphosyntactic alignment; while Esperanto is explicitly > nominative-accusative, Lojban is not. (In fact, I'm not sure which Lojban > belongs to. Could it be the active-stative?) I agree with your other points, but why do you say Lojban is not nominative-accusative? It seems to me that it is exactly that: the single case of intransitive predicates (the x1-case) is treated exactly like one of the cases of transitive predicates (the x1-case again), and for transitive predicates the x1-case is the one that usually corresponds to the agent, just like the subject case in nominative-accusative. Active-stative would require that some intransitive verbs have an x1-case only while others have an x2-case only, which is never the case (unless you are thinking of things like "zi'o broda", but I doubt it's fair to use such unusual cases for the classification). > There are more to the similarity between Lojban and Japanese, but I'm having > difficulty putting it into English. For one thing, briefly, the distinction > between the subject, object, and complement in Japanese is not as important > as in English, which has led some notable Japanese linguists to suggest that > every verb argument in this language is basically a complement of equal > significance in its relation to the predicate, which sounds like what terbri > are to its selbri in Lojban. I would agree that the distinction is less important than in English, but there is still a distinction. The x1-case especially has very distinct properties compared with the other cases, and the x2-case to a lesser extent also has some special properties with respect to the rest. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.