[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Well, at least it won't get in my crotch
At 08:31 AM 05/03/2000 -0700, Jorge Llambias wrote:
la pycyn cusku di'e
>I tend to take the whole exchange as an argument for not dropping x1-- in
>these kinds of exchanges anyhow,where there are often several applicable
>anaphora (not that 'a recent remark' or the like helps much).
It may well be that in this case there wasn't enough context.
But I don't think that not dropping x1 is practical in general.
As you say, 'a recent remark' is not that much more helpful.
In English you don't really have the choice of not using 'it',
and it is short enough that it doesn't get in the way anyway.
But in Lojban, when the choice is between {la'e di'u} and
nothing, I often go for nothing. Not always, but often.
I'm missing the context perhaps, but it seems that knowing that "it" is a
"remark" of some kind is usually more helpful than knowing that "it" is
merely some possible concrete or abstract sumti of arbitrary
complexity. Only if the predicate pretty much unambiguously requires a
remark in the elliptical x1 is it not helpful to say "la'edi'u".
>What gets modified in grammatical modification?
Is "modified" a legitimate word for what is done, or is it mere (malglico)
English metaphor? Specifying a tense in Lojban, where tense (including
perfectives) is completely optional is not "modifying" at all; the meaning
is unchanged but merely more specific. So the proper English verb for the
Lojban process is "specified" or "restricted" for what in English is "tense
modification".
In the clearest cases,
>tanru, it is the referent of the modified to the referent of the complex
>and I guess that can be generalized for subject predicate modification
Making a tanru is best described as "tanru-ification", and there should be
a Lojban word for that act/process that may not have a better English
translation. You can use se tanru and te tanru to talk about what in
English is "modifier" and "modified", and should not be using "galfi".
I don't think it is the referent, but I'm sure this can be
approached from many angles. This is how I'm thinking of it.
Suppose we're seeing a black cat. I say: {ta mlatu}. Then you
say {ta xekri mlatu}. The referent (the cat we see) has not
changed, it has not been modified. It is the reference that has
been modified, it has been made more precise in this case.
i.e. it has been "tanru-ically specified" or "tanru-ically restricted"
>(from the
>referent of the subject to a truth value or event involving that referent)
>and
>so on. But I think there must be a more natural word that {galfi} to deal
>with these relations in Lojban in Lojban.
I haven't found anything better. {galfi} has already been used
this way in previous discussions in Lojban. It wouldn't be
surprising that this has been it's main use so far, given the
topics of Lojban discussions. But it is certainly worthwhile
questioning it and looking for something better.
I agree.
lojbab
----
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)