These tags are becoming indistinguishable from the defini= tions of the terms themselves, the subject of 'gerku' must refer to a dog (= btw, the mixing of language levels is getting a little muddling here). = ; So you can't make a false statement in Lojban? Or at least not one about = dogs? About the outer limit of usefulness here is to refer to the abs= tractors (sorry) that typically occur in each argument place, when there ar= e somre and otherwise just leave it open. If Tom is a block of wood, = then saying he is a dog is false but not ungrammatical. And, indeed, = no noun phrase is ungrammatical in any argument position. Just puzzli= ng, sometimes.

From: = Oren <get.oren@gmail.com>
To= : lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 3:58:36 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra

@Luke.

Mm. Good question. No standoffishness tak= en.

Obviously, this all says nothing about treatm= ent of named entities and other pro-sumti. It may end up applied to cases o= f pronoun resolution, but let's first focus on whether this specification c= ould even offer something consistently valid.

You raise a good point. To extend your argument, not on= ly would { lo gerku } must-be "animate" and even "animal," but specifically= it would have to be "a dog/canine" for it to "make sense" in the same way = as above. { lo mlatu cu gerku } just "doesn't make sense." At first I'm hes= itant as to how such seemingly tautological restrictions should relate to s= eemingly non-trivial ones like { lo [se/te/ve] bajra }.

Here's what I think would happen for {lo gerku}

{ lo gerku } must-be:dog/canine

{ lo gerku } can-act-as: a= nimal, object, animate, agent, volitional

I guess = { lo gerku } is similar to other gismu such as { lo dacti } where any attem= pt to semantically specify it's sensical limits results in naming a class t= hat may or may not span other words. For example, "canine" might be a tag a= ssignable to things like { lo lorxu } and { lo labno }. Of course, the same= spanning wouldn't hold true for { lo lorxu } or { lo labno }, which would = have both met the end of a hierarchy of specificiation.

So, it sounds like what we'd actually be describing is = not just a mass of unrelated 'tags,' but a series of overlapping hierarchic= al taxonomies. Using this method, if a tag is itself a word, then all words= it spans could inherit those tags. Thus, from { lo gerku }'s information a= bove, we now know:

{ lo lorxu } must-be:dog/canine

{ lo lor= xu } can-act-as: animal, object, animate, agent, volitional

{ lo labno } must-be:dog/canine

{ lo labno } can-act-as: animal, = object, animate, agent, volitional

Th= e 'must-be' relations here are a different kind of necessity than I was usi= ng before, but it's still based on our 'common sense' or 'real world' knowl= edge that folks can immediately point out.

For example, that { lo mudri bliku cu kelci gerku } doesn't make as m= uch sense as { lo mudri bliku cu gerku se kelci }

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">Note t= hat certain tautological restrictions (like { lo labno } must-be a "wolf") = won't actually be usefully spanning classes for other words (unlike "animal= " and "canine," which both span at least several other words). If there is = a "keyhole" so specific that no other "key" exists to fit in it's place, we= can only expect that "sensical" sentences will fill that sumti-location wi= th some sort of named entity or pronoun. Right?

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: collapse;">co'o m= i'e korbi

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 15:38= , Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:

My only question = is, will we also be marking x1 of {gerku} as being an animal? lo gerk= u are animals, lo se skari are colors, you ve skina movies, citka food, pil= no tools, djuno facts, and djica events.

It is nonsensical to say {la tam cu gerku} if {tam} is a block of wood. &nb= sp;In my opinion, it is in the same class of absurdity to say {mi djic= a lo mudri bliku}. Now, because people might get confused and think t= hat x2 of djica can be an object, we should mark that x2 of djica is an eve= nt/state. Using that same reasoning, we should also mark x1 of gerku = as being an animate object (or even more specific, that it must be an anima= l).

So where's the spreadsheet and can I add x1 of gerku to= it?

Sorry if I'm sounding stand-offish. May= be I'm missing what the issue is. Don't the gismu list's/jbovlaste say in t= he definitions of the gismu when things are expected to be (events)/(ojbect= s)/(volitional entity)? There's nothing in the grammar that requires = them to be that, it's just absurd to put anything else there in the same wa= y that it is absurd to refer to my mudri bliku as lo gerku.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:18 PM, .alyn.post. = <alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
That's roughly what I had in mind for it.

Note that even though there are a few gismu and that universe is
closed, lujvo will need some way to be marked with these classes
as well.

-Alan

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 02:14:06PM -0400, Oren wrote:
> Re: "Again, the important thing is which individual place= s accept what
> sorts of arguments. The gismu itself just relates those p= laces."
>
> So then, the concept of my spreadsheet *DOES* contain use= ful and valid
> information, but would only be complete if it were expand= ed to include all
> the 'oblique' sumti places as well?
>
> Re:"Does it bother you that *{mi pinxe lo jubme} would al= so be considered
> semantic nonsense, because tables aren't the sort of thin= g that one can
> drink?"
>
> If things like "agent/object" are specified in these defi= nitions, why
> shouldn't all 'sensical' general classes like material st= ates
> ("liquid/solid") be included as well? This is in part why= I was referring
> to these 'classifiers' as 'tags' originally. As long as p= eople can easily
> point to a construction and say "according to this sumti'= s implied class
> and that selbri's meaning, this makes no sense," I think = that type of
> judgement should have a clear litmus test. And there's no= thing stopping
> us. With a vocabulary of less than 1500 words, many of wh= ich fall into
> regular sub-classes in the thesaurus, I see no reason why= we shouldn't
> have this resource.
>
> So, to expand the scope here, I'm proposing that each and= every sumti
> position in gismu definitions list explicit tags for base= line sensicality.
> That is, for bajra:
>
> bajra: x1 runs on surface x2 using limbs x3 with gait x4<= br> >
> Now account for baseline sensicality:
>
> x1 must-be agent...
> x2 must-be material...
> x3 must-be material, must-be movable-part...
> x4 must-be manner...
>
> Now let's envision that these clearly specified 'baseline= sensicality
> tags' for sumti positions are like 'keyhole definitions' = that only these
> explicit classes can fit. Now, each sumti position also g= ets any number of
> 'key definitions' for what it can fit into, or what sumti= places it can
> sensically 'fill.'
>
> x1 can-act-as agent, can-act-as moving-thing, can-act-as = athlete...
> x2 can-act-as general-place, can-act-as surface...
> x3 can-act-as body-part...
> x4 can-act-as idea...
>
> Now, if we do this for every gismu, I imagine we'd end up= with many
> high-frequency tags like "agent" and "material," and seve= ral hundred less
> frequent tags like "liquid" "body-part." Each of these ta= gs would have a
> list of sumti positions it requires, and a (probably much= larger) list of
> sumti positions that can "sensically" fit that semantic r= ole.
> This data/document would not only provide a richer (many-= to-many) series
> of 'categories' for vocabulary study lists, there are a s= eries of new
> applications this would allow. You could automatically ga= uge the degree of
> 'figurative language' used in a text. You could automatic= ally generate
> sensical example sentences for given vocabulary (or even = generate a

> [1]minimal spanning sensible sentence for a s= et of words). You could even

> develop a kind of auto-complete function for a lojba= n-specific
> text-editor: as you begin to type a sumti in, a list of '= sensical'
> suggestions could come up in a tooltip window. If we get = this data, I'd
> totally code that!
>
> But I want to make sure I'm understanding the nature of t= his data set.
> Please let me know if I'm still making sense, and if I do= , I'll come up
> with technical specs for a web interface to make this dat= a easy to gather
> and manage. Maybe I'll use this as a way to learn to use = github.
>
> co'o mi'e korbi
>

> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:14, John E Clifford <[= 2]kali9putra@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
> >
> > Well, xorxes has ideas about how Lojban *does* work,= and, with minor
> exceptions,
> > he has got it right. So Lojban is his "other" langua= ge. Sorry you think
> this
> > discussion is bull-crap; it is trying to work out th= e ramifications of
> Lojvan
> > being a logical language, dealing with both the logi= cal part and the
> language
> > part, and shooting for reasonable resolution where t= hey appear to
> conflict.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----

> > From: Lindar <[3]lindarthebard@yahoo.com>
> > To: lojban <[4]lojban@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 9:55:04 AM
> > Subject: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra
> >
> > Oren, I answered your question some two or three tim= es.
> >
> >
> > Where x2 of broda asks for {nu} and x1 of brode asks= for {nu}, {.i
> > broda lo brode} is kosher, because lo brode already = -is- an event. For
> > all other cases, an abstractor is necessary.
> >
> > (barring all the other bullcrap/arguments going on r= ight now)
> >
> > xorxes, since you have all these ideas about how Loj= ban should work,
> > why don't you just make your -own- language and let = it stand up to
> > Lojban?
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed= to the Google
> Groups
> > "lojban" group.

> > To post to this group, send email to [5]lojban@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > [6]lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at

> > [7]http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed= to the Google
> Groups "lojban" group.

> > To post to this group, send email to [8]lojban@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [9]lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at

> [10]http://groups.google.com/grou= p/lojban?hl=3Den.

> >
>
> --
> Oren Robinson
> (315) 569-2888
> 102 Morrison Ave
> Somerville, MA 02144
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he 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=3Den.
>

> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_spanning_tr= ee
> 2. mailto:kali9pu= tra@yahoo.com
> 3. mailto:l= indarthebard@yahoo.com
> 4. mailto:l= ojban@googlegroups.com
> 5. mailto:l= ojban@googlegroups.com
> 6. mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com > 7. http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den
> 8. mailto:l= ojban@googlegroups.com
> 9. mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com > 10. http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl= =3Den

--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi

--

You received this message because you are subscr= ibed 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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
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@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

Oren Robinson

(315) 569-2888

102 Morrison Ave

Somerville, MA 02144

--
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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.