Received: from mail-la0-f58.google.com ([209.85.215.58]:34389) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Yxbnd-0007mL-4D for lojban-beginners-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:20 -0700 Received: by labgd6 with SMTP id gd6sf2673073lab.1 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=PfPPsD17c+Fg5ctXWSXg49oUHOrpLQIS3Ottj8MqJuA=; b=Bg4l2SRStAaXabP9+dQL4Q24g9S7sdBcVMTM5Jxoe3kaYR+LjPw+k4DoRnf8vgr5f6 pV8ZjwZill/JDvOK33ALGspyuzr4+i1x6NQzi2CeEcfaa5ZOt3izSEh0sApr/ekDhHGc bb5zjp/yzzi9YZqpvQ9mE0PC+V+YS0uqYJwj2F1/Gwx9ovhJhEGTrC9VPC8lCop8VELB QFqxOjoXjnQ1vaMMRTGYtutIoZcKqEVlXwRhOtfLbn02SIEBZyotT0w7km30gIJ625VX UfZNsqtBe2lcxIP4fCQvLCKBbMbjtwo827aITgAHTWATsbuWy0wIuBQ/RnurHWFBdFzK hW7Q== X-Received: by 10.152.182.233 with SMTP id eh9mr165881lac.5.1432734905845; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.6.7 with SMTP id w7ls45129law.84.gmail; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.138.2 with SMTP id qm2mr32160648lbb.19.1432734904152; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2si708347wif.0.2015.05.27.06.55.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::232; Received: by mail-wi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id mx19so112182565wic.0 for ; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.5.103 with SMTP id r7mr57946991wjr.47.1432734904012; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.226.195 with HTTP; Wed, 27 May 2015 06:55:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7246a2f2-8fe9-4db2-b104-c825409e634a@googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:55:03 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Does the argument limit lead to half-ass words? From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4512f202d48905171097b1 X-Original-Sender: Mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Content-Length: 19259 --047d7b4512f202d48905171097b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just want to make sure, TR NS, that you are not under the impression that selbri can't have more than 5 places, or that is no way of referencing to the >5th places or switching them. They can, and we can, respectively. --gejyspa On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:48 AM, TR NS wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 2:22:37 AM UTC-4, la gleki wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-05-16 5:10 GMT+03:00 TR NS : >> >>> In my recent studies of Lojban (and Loglan) I've started to question th= e >>> efficacy of the argument system. One the things that struck me was the = word >>> for "run". >>> >>> barja x1 runs on x2 using limbs x3 with gait x4 >>> >> >> {bajra} ({lo barja} is a tavern, bar) >> > > Ha! I was wondering why the rafsi was `baj` ;-) > > >> >> >>> That seems a strange definition. I can't really think of single time I >>> ever needed to express that the running was done with anything other th= en >>> legs. >>> >> >> I watched many videos on Youtube where people were able to run using >> their hands. Besides, horses don't necessarily have hands and feet. >> > >> >>> Perhaps it would be useful when talking about Oscar Pistorius Olympic >>> races, but that's a rather rare case! >>> >> >> So we'll use all places of this verb very seldom! Not all places are >> always needed. >> >> >>> When I think of running, it tends to be *to* some place or at least >>> *via* some path. The word "barja" really doesn't seem like the idea of >>> running. It seems more akin to "treading", as in "running on a tread mi= ll", >>> since the definition has no arguments whatsoever for origin or destinat= ion. >>> >> >> Yes, indeed. Conciseness of English definitions can sometimes lead to >> their incorrect interpretations. >> Here is one of my examples (not sure where I got it): >> >> xu do su'o roi senva lo ka bajra lo jdika grana lo xance be do =E2=80=94= Have you >> ever dreamt of running on your hands on a narrow rod? >> >> > Yea, I am not saying the limbs isn't a valid argument. It is. It's just > that it seems a less useful than a "to", "from" or "via". > > >> >>> But I suspect that is not what the definer really had in mind. I think >>> rather, those arguments were left out (as if we could sensibly talk abo= ut >>> running without them) because the definition needed to stay under five >>> arguments and the definer already knew that a lujvo could be formed wit= h >>> "klama". And so we find the word "bajykla". >>> >>> bajykla k1 runs to destination k2 from origin k3 via route k4 using >>> limbs b3 with gait b4 >>> >>> This word strikes me as what running is really all about. But notice we >>> lost the surface (x2) argument. Moreover, I could easily imagine an >>> additional speed argument. >>> >>> That lead me to wonder if the ordinal argument system is really >>> sufficient. "Running" is a concept and everything that can be reasonabl= y >>> associated with the concept should be accounted for in the possible >>> arguments. >>> >> >> I'm sure, you are not going to add places for what was the weather while >> the person was running or what was the political situation in Berguland = at >> that time. All of those factors could make running somewhat different an= d >> result in different results (the weather could change the route etc.) >> > > Right. The weather isn't integral to the idea of running. That's really > what I am getting at. It seems like the idea of running has been broken u= p > too much so that integral aspects of the concept have been divided across > two words, not because they make sense in themselves, but just to fit a > grammar limitation. > > Let me give an example in the opposite direction to clarify what I mean. > Why is "klama" defined as: > > x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using > means/vehicle x5. > > Why not instead have four simpler words for: > > x1 goes to destination x2 > > x1 comes from origin x2 > > x1 traverses route x2 > > x1 uses/employs x2 for purpose x3 > > Then combine these to make a lujvo equivalent to "klama". (Note the last > already exists as `pilno`.) Clearly this is just as doable as `bajykla`. > And to our advantage we have words we can use without extraneous argument= s > -- as you said, "Not all places are always needed." > > >> While it's kind of neat how "bajykla" can be composed form "barja" and >>> "klama", being *neat* isn't high in my list of criteria for being well >>> defined. >>> >>> On top of this, reading about Modal Tags, that really hammered home to >>> me that the argument system has some holes. I don't see how a well defi= ned >>> predicate could ever make sense with dynamically added arguments. If th= ey >>> made sense they should already be part of the predicate's definition. (= Of >>> course, some modals are basically short-cuts for making relative clause= s >>> and not so much case tags at all. These stand out b/c they are universa= lly >>> applicable to just about any predicate.) >>> >>> In short, it seems like the limitation of keeping the number of >>> arguments within a small range (generally five) is an arbitrary provisi= on >>> that causes some concepts to be chopped-up into equally arbitrary parti= al >>> concepts. Of course, the converse issue would be how to handle predica= tes >>> with potentially a dozen arguments when it is already difficult enough = to >>> recall the fourth or fifth? >>> >> >> Just use several verbs. You can easily say {mi bajra lo jdika grana lo >> xance gi'e klama do ...} >> > > Sure. But I am not asking about the technical how to deal with it in the > current structure of the language. Rather, I am wondering about a more > philosophical question. i.e. Is "bajra" a real concept? Or is it merely a > "partial-concept" that exists only because of limitations of the grammar? > And if we were to make it complete, something more like `bajykla`, but wi= th > even a few more arguments, e.g. > > x1 runs to destination x2 from origin x3 via route x4 at speed x5 on > surface x6 using limbs x7 with gait x8 > > How could such long predicates be manageable? > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --047d7b4512f202d48905171097b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Just want to make sure, TR NS, that you are n= ot under the impression that selbri can't have more than 5 places, or t= hat is no way of referencing to the >5th places or switching them.=C2=A0= They can, and we can, respectively.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0--gejyspa


On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:48 AM, TR NS= <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:


On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 2:22:37 AM UTC-= 4, la gleki wrote:

Ha! I was wondering why the rafsi was `baj` ;-)
=C2=A0

=

That seems a strange definition. I can= 't really think of single time I ever needed to express that the runnin= g was done with anything other then legs.

=
I watched many videos on Youtube where people were able to run u= sing their hands. Besides, horses don't necessarily have hands and feet= .
=C2=A0
Perhaps it would be useful when talking a= bout=C2=A0Oscar Pistorius=C2=A0Olympic races, but that's a rather rare = case!

So we'll use all plac= es of this verb very seldom! Not all places are always needed.
= =C2=A0
When I think of running= , it tends to be *to* some place or at least *via* some path. The word &quo= t;barja" really doesn't seem like the idea of running. It seems mo= re akin to "treading", as in "running on a tread mill",= since the definition has no arguments whatsoever for origin or destination= .

Yes, indeed. Conciseness of E= nglish definitions can sometimes lead to their incorrect interpretations.
Here is one of my examples (not sure where I got it):
xu do su'o roi senva lo ka bajra lo jdika grana lo xa= nce be do =E2=80=94 Have you ever dreamt of running on your hands on a narr= ow rod?


Yea, I am not saying the limbs isn't a valid argument. It is. It&= #39;s just that it seems a less useful than a "to", "from&qu= ot; or "via".
=C2=A0=C2=A0

Bu= t I suspect that is not what the definer really had in mind. I think rather= , those arguments were left out (as if we could sensibly talk about running= without them) because the definition needed to stay under five arguments a= nd the definer already knew that a lujvo could be formed with "klama&q= uot;. And so we find the word "bajykla".

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 bajykla k1 runs to destination k2 from origin k3 via route k= 4 using limbs b3 with gait b4

This word strikes me as what running is really all about. But notic= e we lost the surface (x2) argument. Moreover, I could easily imagine an ad= ditional speed argument.

That lead me to wonder if= the ordinal argument system is really sufficient. "Running" is a= concept and everything that can be reasonably associated with the concept = should be accounted for in the possible arguments.
=

I'm sure, you are not going to add places for what = was the weather while the person was running or what was the political situ= ation in Berguland at that time. All of those factors could make running so= mewhat different and result in different results (the weather could change = the route etc.)

<= div>Right. The weather isn't integral to the idea of running. That'= s really what I am getting at. It seems like the idea of running has been b= roken up too much so that integral aspects of the concept have been divided= across two words, not because they make sense in themselves, but just to f= it a grammar limitation.=C2=A0

Let me give an exam= ple in the opposite direction to clarify what I mean. Why is "klama&qu= ot; defined as:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0x1 comes/goes to destination x2 from origin x3 via route = x4=C2=A0using means/vehicle x5.

Why not instead have four simpler words for:

=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0x1 goes to destination x2

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 x1 comes from origin x2

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 x1 traverses route x2

= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 x1 uses/employs x2 for purpose x3

Then combine these t= o make a lujvo equivalent to "klama". (Note the last already exis= ts as `pilno`.) Clearly this is just as doable as `bajykla`. And to our adv= antage we have words we can use without extraneous arguments -- as you said= , "Not all places are always needed."


While it&= #39;s kind of neat how "bajykla" can be composed form "barja= " and "klama", being *neat* isn't high in my list of cri= teria for being well defined.

On top of this, read= ing about Modal Tags, that really hammered home to me that the argument sys= tem has some holes. I don't see how a well defined predicate could ever= make sense with dynamically added arguments. If they made sense they shoul= d already be part of the predicate's definition. (Of course, some modal= s are basically short-cuts for making relative clauses and not so much case= tags at all. These stand out b/c they are universally applicable to just a= bout any predicate.)

In short, it seems like the l= imitation of keeping the number of arguments within a small range (generall= y five) is an arbitrary provision that causes some concepts to be chopped-u= p into equally arbitrary partial concepts.=C2=A0 Of course, the converse is= sue would be how to handle predicates with potentially a dozen arguments wh= en it is already difficult enough to recall the fourth or fifth?

Just use several verbs. You can easily sa= y {mi bajra lo jdika grana lo xance gi'e klama do ...}=C2=A0

Sure. But I am not ask= ing about the technical how to deal with it in the current structure of the= language. Rather, I am wondering about a more philosophical question. i.e.= Is "bajra" a real concept? Or is it merely a "partial-conce= pt" that exists only because of limitations of the grammar? And if we = were to make it complete, something more like `bajykla`, but with even a fe= w more arguments, e.g.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 x1 runs to destination x2 fro= m origin x3 via route x4 at speed x5 on surface x6 using limbs x7 with gait= x8

How could such long predicates be manageable?








=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.=
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lo= jban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7b4512f202d48905171097b1--