[lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/15/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > It should be noted -- pragmatically again --
> that
> > in contexts where the
> distributivity/collectivity
> > is at issue, {lo} becomes the marker for
> > distributivity just by not being {loi}.
> 
> Not any more that it becomes the marker for
> non-distributivity
> just by not being {ro}.

Fine.  If someone says {ro broda cu brode}
insisting on {lo broda cu brode} would indeed
make the claim that the predication was
collective.  I think the {lo}-{loi} contrast is
more likely since it is built into Lojban, while
{ro} belongs to a different category.
 
> In contexts where distributivity is at issue,
> {lo} can go either
> way, and if context is not sufficient to
> disambiguate, the
> speaker has simply failed to provide enough
> information.
> 
> >  On the other hand, the gadri
> > and quantifier methods of indicating
> predication
> > are technically inadequate since they do not
> say
> > what kind of predication is involved in the
> > description itself: "Those who (together)
> > surround the building are red-haired" might
> need
> > to be distinguished from "Those who (each)
> > surround the bulding are very long walls" for
> > example.
> 
> Right, when you need such precision, the price
> is more
> wordiness. For example:
> 
>   ro da poi lu'o ke'a sruri le dinju cu xunre
> kerfa

{se kerfa}
 
>   ro sruri be le dinju cu clani bitmu

This does not say whether the referents surround
the building collectively or distributively, only
that they are distributively long walls. We can
make distributively the default case, of course,
but that seems to be against your program.

> {lo ro sruri be le dinju cu xunre kerfa} is
> perfectly understandable,
> but does not include any distribution
> information explicitly.

 
> > The gadri indiciation also complicates
> > collapsing cases of two kinds of predication
> with
> > a common core: "The wall (by itself) and the
> > students (together) surround the bulding"
> 
> That one is not hard:
> 
>   le bitmu .e loi tadni cu sruri le dinju
> 
> {.e} is distributive, and {loi} is not.
> 
> > and as
> > above "John and Mary (separately) picked up
> tools
> > and (together) started to build a house."
> 
> Right, this one requires splitting into two
> sentences.

As a practical matter for the construction of a
language to be used, it would be nice (though
probably not essential) to do this in another way
that was more flexible.  It might also be more
accurate, since what is involved is not different
things but different ways they are being
predicated of, so putting the mark of distinction
on the thing-referrer is misleading.
 
> > {pagbu} will not always work for "part" if
> > transitivity is maintained, since I am a part
> of
> > society and my liver is a part of me, but my
> > liver is not a part of society.
> 
> I suspect that might be because of the
> ambiguity of "I/me",
> in one case referring to my person and in the
> other to my
> body: My person is part of society and my liver
> is part of
> my body, but I would not say that my body is
> part of
> society or that my liver is part of my person.

Nice!  That works too, though {pagbu} still is
not a comfortable fit for "in" or "among".


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.