Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 19:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <7246a2f2-8fe9-4db2-b104-c825409e634a@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Does the argument limit lead to half-ass words?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1139_498372610.1431742210383"
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.2
X-Spam_score_int: -21
X-Spam_bar: --
Content-Length: 7200

------=_Part_1139_498372610.1431742210383
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1140_962232970.1431742210383"

------=_Part_1140_962232970.1431742210383
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

In my recent studies of Lojban (and Loglan) I've started to question the 
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 

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 then legs. 
Perhaps it would be useful when talking about Oscar Pistorius Olympic 
races, but that's a rather rare case! 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 mill", since the definition has no arguments 
whatsoever for origin or destination.

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 about 
running without them) because the definition needed to stay under five 
arguments and the definer already knew that a lujvo could be formed with 
"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 reasonably associated 
with the concept should be accounted for in the possible arguments. 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 defined 
predicate could ever make sense with dynamically added arguments. If they 
made sense they should already be part of the predicate's definition. (Of 
course, some modals 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 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 provision that causes 
some concepts to be chopped-up into equally arbitrary partial concepts.  Of 
course, the converse issue would be how to handle predicates with 
potentially a dozen arguments when it is already difficult enough to recall 
the fourth or fifth?


-- 
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.

------=_Part_1140_962232970.1431742210383
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">In my recent studies of Lojban (and Loglan) I've started t=
o question the efficacy of the argument system. One the things that struck =
me was the word for "run".<br><div><br></div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; barja x1 ru=
ns on x2 using limbs x3 with gait x4&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>That se=
ems a strange definition. I can't really think of single time I ever needed=
 to express that the running was done with anything other then legs. Perhap=
s it would be useful when talking about&nbsp;Oscar Pistorius&nbsp;Olympic r=
aces, but that's a rather rare case! When I think of running, it tends to b=
e *to* some place or at least *via* some path. The word "barja" really does=
n't seem like the idea of running. It seems more akin to "treading", as in =
"running on a tread mill", since the definition has no arguments whatsoever=
 for origin or destination.</div><div><br></div><div>But I suspect that is =
not what the definer really had in mind. I think rather, those arguments we=
re left out (as if we could sensibly talk about running without them) becau=
se the definition needed to stay under five arguments and the definer alrea=
dy knew that a lujvo could be formed with "klama". And so we find the word =
"bajykla".</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; bajykla k1 runs to destin=
ation k2 from origin k3 via route k4 using limbs b3 with gait b4
<br><br>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.</div><div><br></div><div>That lead me to wonder if=
 the ordinal argument system is really sufficient. "Running" is a concept a=
nd everything that can be reasonably associated with the concept should be =
accounted for in the possible arguments. While it's kind of neat how "bajyk=
la" can be composed form "barja" and "klama", being *neat* isn't high in my=
 list of criteria for being well defined.</div><div><br></div><div>On top o=
f 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 defined predicate co=
uld ever make sense with dynamically added arguments. If they made sense th=
ey should already be part of the predicate's definition. (Of course, some m=
odals 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 ju=
st about any predicate.)</div><div><br></div><div>In short, it seems like t=
he limitation of keeping the number of arguments within a small range (gene=
rally five) is an arbitrary provision that causes some concepts to be chopp=
ed-up into equally arbitrary partial concepts. &nbsp;Of course, the convers=
e issue would be how to handle predicates with potentially a dozen argument=
s when it is already difficult enough to recall the fourth or fifth?</div><=
div><br></div><div><br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Lojban Beginners&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lo=
jban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban-beginners@goo=
glegroups.com">lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginn=
ers">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1140_962232970.1431742210383--
------=_Part_1139_498372610.1431742210383--