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

[Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>]

>> 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.
>
> I don't know. I would have thought using it for the second time was
> about as common as for all other times combined. And probably the same
> for "again".  Would you not naturally use "again" for the second time
> something happens?

Yes, I would, but in many cases re = so'i.

But the more you suggest that I am wrong about this, the more convinced I
become.  I do not take your experience with this language lightly.  You have
probably used the phrase {za'u re'u} a hundred times more than I have.  Hell,
for all I know, you invented it!  (Or "discovered" it?)

I'll reconsider my use of it and my interpretation of others' use of
it.  I don't
really have any strong opinions about it; someone else brought it up and I
just used it as an example.

We do agree, though, that whatever lexical bias about {za'u re'u} is small
and in any case not in conflict with the compositional meaning.

>> When a tanru gets to become too lexicalized, turn it into a lujvo so
>> that tanru space can remain as compositional as possible.
>
> lujvo are not just lexicalized tanru. In fact there should be no
> connection between lujvo and tanru. Unfortunately, lujvo are taught as
> "coming from an underlying tanru", but they don't really come from a
> tanru. The place structure of a lujvo is usually rather different from
> that of any tanru one might want to associate with it. The only
> connection between a lujvo and a tanru might be with respect to the x1
> of each, but all else is in general different.

Well, that sounds a little extreme.  People are quite strict about what the
place structure and meaning of a lujvo should be.  You're right: the place
structure is not the same as any tanru, but it's usually derived from the
places of the components of a tanru.  At least my experience is that the
general opinion is that a lujvo should be a restriction of a tanru.

Of course, there are lujvo, like {nu zei broda}, that have no corresponding
tanru, but those are special cases.

Anyway, I do agree that there is probably too much focus on the connection
between lujvo and tanru.  In fact, I think there is too much focus on lujvo
altogether: I would like to hear the word "brivla" much more often than either
of the words "gismu", "lujvo" and "fu'ivla" (and the word "selbri" much more
often than the word "brivla").  People get hung up on the categories of brivla,
when those are usually quite inconsequential.  A brivla is a brivla is a brivla.

I wonder where we would be today if gismu and lujvo had not been invented.
The process of coining new words might have been more constructive.

>> 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.
>
> There's "pe'a", although that's not exactly what you're talking about.

It is relevant, though!  Good point.

I'm thinking that {bi'u} is sort of similar to what I'm talking about, too.

>> For example: ZEI is "interpret this tanru lexically".  But how do we say
>> "do not interpret this tanru lexically"?
>
> I wouldn't say that's what ZEI is. What would be an example of a
> lexical interpretation of a tanru?

I'm stretching the meaning of the word "lexical" there.  What I meant
was that ZEI forces a *particular* interpretation of a tanru.  In a way,
it's sort of the same difference as that between {lo broda} and {le broda}.
The former is "compositional", whereas the latter is "lexical", in the sense
that you explicitly can't expect to understand it fully just by combining the
meaning of the words {le} and {broda}.

But to answer your question, to fully understand {fukpi zei valsi} you cannot
rely on combining {fukpi} and {valsi}: you have to look it up in a dictionary.

By the way, now that {lo} is purely syntactical, a similar thing happens
there: how do you indicate that you're using {lo broda} "compositionally";
in other words, what's the "opposite" of {le}?  I know we have several other
gadri to choose from ({lo'e} in particular seems relevant), but I think that's
sidestepping a little bit: I could say the same thing about {lo'e broda}: how
do I indicate that I'm not talking about a *particular* kind of typical broda?

To take a concrete example, let's say {lo logji bangu}.  That's a relatively
lexicalized phrase.  We all have a preconception about what it means:
something like {lo simsa be la loglan}.  But it can just as well mean, for
example, a formal system of logic.  How do I wash away the sticky lexical
goo from the phrase so that I can utilize its full compositional potential?

-- 
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.