From lojban+bncCMvjp-TQBRCdtrzfBBoE71TiTA@googlegroups.com Sat May 15 15:07:43 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ODPWE-0008OU-AD; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:43 -0700 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20sf564167wye.16 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:31 -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:received:mime-version:sender :received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VfbpW+3rH4rGM6Vw8i3FKDzU62T7QwGtIBopI3tFjhQ=; b=i++txMv2ZHnWDPwK+wD0YYZJXQ5eXn29hDK5IryV5o3g3IIctIcwFasa2KmwpZmiLF qbjIK1bLKAnEVnmS2kBf7KXjyUBjPD7KbcUu4N3HDtd3A3RFI7uixWnGUyLHAeRXMIPh cB36a8wX/b3uy5RoEZd+XXrg9DM5dZcp2SRZk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=M8PzbWmiuUq8VGPnYl7y5Gz366b2OpIJcX0tufZrXJ5GHkjKZA7PACpE/pxRIcvW/F ABQ0Y+3cu9LEE1GGoEAqw0Y5/9dlewGZR9WQtmUuRTI4qPSqkwyTvbqK93kO19OGaiV4 1Ljdp1Iplfp9hGQIRPo0g7GX1oHO4cmPDDTpM= Received: by 10.223.62.145 with SMTP id x17mr496665fah.13.1273961245597; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.149.73 with SMTP id s9ls4761890fav.2.p; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.59.151 with SMTP id l23mr255221fah.28.1273961243549; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.59.151 with SMTP id l23mr255220fah.28.1273961243518; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f48.google.com (mail-fx0-f48.google.com [209.85.161.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x13si3016770fah.3.2010.05.15.15.07.22; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.48; Received: by mail-fx0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 19so1916264fxm.35 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.146.135 with SMTP id h7mr247274bkv.200.1273961242137; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.80.10 with HTTP; Sat, 15 May 2010 15:07:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Daniel Brockman Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 00:07:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i} To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dbrockman@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: dbrockman@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>=A0The thing about {za'u re'u} is it suggests {za'u so'i re'u}. >> It does apply to any time other than the first time, but is *usually* us= ed >> to indicate that something happens again after relatively many times. > > I don't know. I would have thought using it for the second time was > about as common as for all other times combined. And probably the same > for "again". Would you not naturally use "again" for the second time > something happens? Yes, I would, but in many cases re =3D so'i. But the more you suggest that I am wrong about this, the more convinced I become. I do not take your experience with this language lightly. You hav= e probably used the phrase {za'u re'u} a hundred times more than I have. Hel= l, for all I know, you invented it! (Or "discovered" it?) I'll reconsider my use of it and my interpretation of others' use of it. I don't really have any strong opinions about it; someone else brought it up and I just used it as an example. We do agree, though, that whatever lexical bias about {za'u re'u} is small and in any case not in conflict with the compositional meaning. >> When a tanru gets to become too lexicalized, turn it into a lujvo so >> that tanru space can remain as compositional as possible. > > lujvo are not just lexicalized tanru. In fact there should be no > connection between lujvo and tanru. Unfortunately, lujvo are taught as > "coming from an underlying tanru", but they don't really come from a > tanru. The place structure of a lujvo is usually rather different from > that of any tanru one might want to associate with it. The only > connection between a lujvo and a tanru might be with respect to the x1 > of each, but all else is in general different. Well, that sounds a little extreme. People are quite strict about what the place structure and meaning of a lujvo should be. You're right: the place structure is not the same as any tanru, but it's usually derived from the places of the components of a tanru. At least my experience is that the general opinion is that a lujvo should be a restriction of a tanru. Of course, there are lujvo, like {nu zei broda}, that have no corresponding tanru, but those are special cases. Anyway, I do agree that there is probably too much focus on the connection between lujvo and tanru. In fact, I think there is too much focus on lujvo altogether: I would like to hear the word "brivla" much more often than eit= her of the words "gismu", "lujvo" and "fu'ivla" (and the word "selbri" much mor= e often than the word "brivla"). People get hung up on the categories of bri= vla, when those are usually quite inconsequential. A brivla is a brivla is a br= ivla. I wonder where we would be today if gismu and lujvo had not been invented. The process of coining new words might have been more constructive. >> By the way, I think it may be a good idea to have an escape hatch for >> this kind of lexicalization. =A0A way to say, "interpret this compositio= nally." >> Preferably as a UI. =A0Then we would get "interpret this lexically" for = free. > > There's "pe'a", although that's not exactly what you're talking about. It is relevant, though! Good point. I'm thinking that {bi'u} is sort of similar to what I'm talking about, too. >> For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically". =A0But how do we s= ay >> "do not interpret this tanru lexically"? > > I wouldn't say that's what ZEI is. What would be an example of a > lexical interpretation of a tanru? I'm stretching the meaning of the word "lexical" there. What I meant was that ZEI forces a *particular* interpretation of a tanru. In a way, it's sort of the same difference as that between {lo broda} and {le broda}. The former is "compositional", whereas the latter is "lexical", in the sens= e that you explicitly can't expect to understand it fully just by combining t= he meaning of the words {le} and {broda}. But to answer your question, to fully understand {fukpi zei valsi} you cann= ot rely on combining {fukpi} and {valsi}: you have to look it up in a dictiona= ry. By the way, now that {lo} is purely syntactical, a similar thing happens there: how do you indicate that you're using {lo broda} "compositionally"; in other words, what's the "opposite" of {le}? I know we have several othe= r gadri to choose from ({lo'e} in particular seems relevant), but I think tha= t's sidestepping a little bit: I could say the same thing about {lo'e broda}: h= ow do I indicate that I'm not talking about a *particular* kind of typical bro= da? To take a concrete example, let's say {lo logji bangu}. That's a relativel= y lexicalized phrase. We all have a preconception about what it means: something like {lo simsa be la loglan}. But it can just as well mean, for example, a formal system of logic. How do I wash away the sticky lexical goo from the phrase so that I can utilize its full compositional potential? --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.