Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?

[Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 05:43:42PM -0500, Craig wrote:
> >> Oh, and I seem to rememeber you using 'xu' and '.ui' the last time this
> >> came up. Is 'xu' being in UI the only thing that bothers you about se
> >> cmavo? If you want to junk something, I'd hope there is at least more
> than
> >> one instance of it annoying you.
> 
> I missed this comment the first time, so I will respond now. The answer is
> that xu and .ui are a particularly blatant example, but far from the only
> one. I also don't think that lerfu should be a seperate cmavo when the most
> common use is as pro-sumti - which should put them in KOhA.

But ko'ako'e is two pronouns, while bycy. is one. Therefore they are not
the same.

> >I mostly disagree with Craig's hatred of selma'o. He's railing against
> >the whole system because of, apparently, a mistaken idea of their
> >purpose.
> 
> I like the idea of putting cmavo in classes by function. I dislike how it
> was implemented. If two things are not identical in their function within
> the sentence (the ''se cmavo'') then they should not be put in the same
> selma'o, e.g. xu, the attitudinal that has nothing to do with attitudes.

You are still confusing grammatical function with semantic meaning. In
Lojban, it's important to keep them separate.

Do you believe that the official parser should be modified so that it
treats "xu" as a different case than "ui", even though it would then run
exactly the same code? If not, then you are talking about something
else, not selma'o.

> Furthermore, consider the other problem with UI. Is "(some UI) le broda cu
> brode" asserting that 'le broda cu brode'? You definitely can't say yes and
> include .e'o, .e'u, or many people's interpretation of .a'o - but you can't
> say no and include .ui, zo'o, or .iu, to name a few examples. This is a
> serious grammatical difference. Maybe call one UI and one XU, or something,
> because then it is possible to say, for instance, "all UI have the same
> function, the expressing of emotion, while all XU have the function of
> removing the assertive value of the bridi to express something about it
> without having to claim it is true or nesting it inside of a ''nu'' phrase."
> I would like to see the x2 of cmavo filled by the actual function of the
> cmavo, rather than some arbitrary capital letters. Thus, ''zo .ui cmavo le
> selcinmo'' because its grammatical function (that's right its SE CMAVO) is
> one of emotions. ''zo xu na cmavo le selcinmo'', as it asks questions
> instead.

If an emotion is a grammatical function, there is something seriously
weird about Lojban's grammar. It would be like diagramming a sentence in
English like this:

The       boy    caught a         haddock.
article - noun - verb - article - fish

So I still maintain that all of this arises from the fact that you don't
understand what "grammatical function" means.

You also bring assertive value into this; the assertive value has never
mattered to the grammar of a sentence.

I don't think {se cmavo} means what you think it means. The word you are
looking for might be {smuni} or {smuni klesi}.

Let me illustrate in English - consider these two sentences.
"A job well done is its own reward"
"A job well done is its own uncle"

The first sentence makes sense; the second does not. "Reward" and
"uncle" are two words that are generally found in vastly different
contexts. However, there is nothing grammatically wrong with changing
"reward" to "uncle" in the second sentence, because "reward" and "uncle"
are both nouns.

> >However, I believe that from usage some selma'o will eventually combine.
> >What is the grammatical distinction between ZEhA, ZAhO, FAhA, and PU?
> 
> The same as the distinction between UI and XU, in my hypothetical example.

Just the opposite, I'd say. UI and "XU" have no distinction,
grammatically, and you are trying to create one. ZEhA, ZAhO, FAhA, and
PU have distinctions somewhere (or else they would not be separate
selma'o), and I'm wondering what those distinctions are, and whether
those distinctions could be removed in usage.
-- 
la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri