[lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything

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

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

> On 3/26/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The essential thing in this context was
> that
> > > the
> > > prime FEEL does not have a Lojban
> equivalent,
> > > that
> > > Lojban splits this prime in two: {cinmo}
> and
> > > {ganse}.
> >
> > Well, neither of them fits very well: {cinmo}
> is
> > explicitly about emotions, with the rpoblems
> > noted; {ganse} wants a stimulus.  How does
> one
> > say "I feel (something) bad"?
> 
> "I feel bad" could be {mi cortu} or {mi dunku},
> but we'd
> need more context. There is no general "feel"
> in Lojban that
> covers both emotions and sensations.
>
The locution seems always to be "I feel something
good/bad"  I suppose {ganse}comes closer to this
than {cinmo} but that is arguable and neither
works very well.  It seems Lojban has nothing for
sensations at all.

> > > Other primes that Lojban seems to split are
> for
> > > example THINK into {pensi} and {jinvi},
> >
> >  this seems to be clearly {jinvi} "think
> > something about something," there is some
> > discussion of a need to divide it into "think
> > something" and "think about."  Incidentally,
> why
> > does Lojban have two words here?
> 
> At least the paraphrase for "loves" seems to
> use both:
> 
> X often thinks about Y
> X thinks good things about Y
> 
> X so'i roi pensi Y
> X jinvi lo zabna Y
> 
> The first one does not say that X often has
> opinions about Y,
> but that Y is often on X's mind.

But can one have someone on one's mind without
some proprositional content?  As far as I can see
-- from a logical point of view, mind you, not
NSM  -- {jinvi} should not have a third place (it
creates all kinds of problems and is an artifact
of English idiom) and {pensi} is then just {jinvi
tu'a}.  NSM seems to want {jinvi} with the common
case of dropping the x2.

> >  HAPPEN
> > > into {fasnu} and {se lifri}
> >
> > Mainly {se lifri} the line seems laways to be
> > "Something happens to something."
> 
> So the sense of {fasnu} would not be prime?

Apparently not.  I don't have cases and the talk
suggests that it is always "Something happens to
something," never "Such and such happens"
(indeed, the grammar for English NSM sentences
doesn't allow an event noun phrase in place of
"such and such"; the best one could get would be
"This happens: such-and-such [as a full
sentence]" Events tend to be unspecified with
"happens" anyhow.

> >  and probably KNOW
> > > into
> > > {djuno} and {se slabu}.
> >
> > I can't find a {se slabu} case, but I have a
> list
> > of only a couple dozen cases.
> 
> Right, it's hard to be sure from just the
> keyword. Presumably this
> has been worked out since this is not a
> particularly Lojbanic
> distinction.

My guess is that it is clearly the {djuno} sense
(wissen, saber, savoir, etc.)
 
> >  Not to mention the very
> > > problematic HAVE.
> >
> > It seems to be the minimal "alienable use"
> sense
> > (which Lojban doesn't do to well), but I
> can't
> > find an example of it.
> 
> Well, either Lojban doesn't do it well or
> Lojban doesn't do it just
> like English. If the English way is truly prime
> and universal, then
> Lojban doesn't do it well.

I think that Lojban can do the lowest level
English thing as well as all the more complicated
ones, it is just that they are done by different
predicates, rather than all by one. I've never
worked out a list but there are all the
particular "part" predicates in place of the
"inalienable possession" sense, {ponse} for the
strong legal sense, and Lord knows what all for
the phases in between.

> 
> > > I don't know what the Spanish prime
> > > corresponding
> > > to YOU is either. There are four
> candidates:
> > > "tú", "usted", "ustedes" and "vosotros",
> and
> > > it's hard
> > > to say that there are no conceptual
> differences
> > > among
> > > them.
> >
> > I think it has to be "usted," but again, I
> don't
> > have a case.
> 
> I would have said "tú" if I was forced to pick
> one, but I have
> no idea how one decides which one is a prime
> and which
> one isn't.

I picked "usted" as the most neutral form,
although even it is distinctly singular, as
English "you" is not.  But I think the "you" in
NSM is meant to be singular (again, no explicit
cases, so the evidence here is indirect). 

> > > So the primes seem to fit English very well
> but
> > > other languages not so well.
> >
> > Well, it fits English well in the sense that
> > there are English expressions that do
> (sometimes)
> > mean what is intended here (but it presumably
> > fits Spanish in that way two, else some of
> these
> > "primes" would clearly not be primes).  The
> > problem is that all the English expressions
> are
> > polysemous and it is hard to pick out the
> right
> > one and be sure to use only it.
> 
> So part of the problem is that they don't
> manage to explain
> their primes very well.

Well, of course they are primes so they can't
officially be explained at all.  Still, some more
examples would be useful.  The only one I have
actually seen that directly deals with this
problem is a comment by Uwe Durst in his rebuttal
article in Theoretical Linguistics 29.3, where he
selects "He moves (a part of) his body" as giving
the sense of MOVE in English (presumably the
volitional twitch, not the "cause to be
displaced" reading even here).


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.