Re: [lojban] Attitudinal scales and the meaning of {cu'i}

[Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>]

>>> If you mean "za'u re'u", "a time after the first one", it also seems
>>> compositional to me.
>>
>> It's compatible with the compositional meaning, but it usually
>> means something more specific: "a time after the last time".
>
> Isn't every time (other than the first one) a time after the previous
> one? What is the difference between "a time after the last time" and
> "a time other than the first time"?

You're right.  The thing about {za'u re'u} is it suggests {za'u so'i re'u}.
It does apply to any time other than the first time, but is *usually* used
to indicate that something happens again after relatively many times.

At least, that's my interpretation.  But note that I'm not saying this that
this is a problem!  Most vague expressions will have SOME "more likely"
subset of all the compositionally possible interpretations, often due to the
language culture.  I think this is impossible to avoid.

What we can do is try to keep it at a reasonable level, and make the
lexicalization explicit, instead of keeping it implicit, when possible.
When a tanru gets to become too lexicalized, turn it into a lujvo so
that tanru space can remain as compositional as possible.

When a cmavo cluster becomes too lexicalized, coin a new cmavo so
that the original cmavo can remain as compositional as possible, or
explicitly define the cmavo cluster to have the more specific meaning.
(This is done with {UI nai}, for example.)

Of course, this is only a problem when the lexicalized meaning is a
significant restriction of the compositionally possible meanings.

For example, there's no need to do anything about {lo nu} just because we
probably often think of it as a single lexical item, because the lexicalized
meaning is identical to the compositional one.

>> Which I guess is fine, but it is a slight lexicalization.
>
> Then every combination used more or less frequently is a
> lexicalization. Is "la'e di'u" a lexicalization?

Definitely.  The question is: is the lexicalized meaning a significant
restriction of the possible meanings?  I'm not sure, but at least it doesn't
seem like a huge restriction: {la'e di'u} is itself quite vague.  But there's
little question to me that it is a lexical item of its own in our brains.


By the way, I think it may be a good idea to have an escape hatch for
this kind of lexicalization.  A way to say, "interpret this compositionally."
Preferably as a UI.  Then we would get "interpret this lexically" for free.

For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically".  But how do we say
"do not interpret this tanru lexically"?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.