Re: "Again, the important thing is which individual places accept what sorts of arguments. The gismu itself just relates those places."
So then, the concept of my spreadsheet *DOES* contain useful and valid information, but would only be complete if it were expanded to include all the 'oblique' sumti places as well?
Re:"Does it bother you that *{mi pinxe lo jubme} would also be considered semantic nonsense, because tables aren't the sort of thing that one can drink?"
If things like "agent/object" are specified in these definitions, why shouldn't all 'sensical' general classes like material states ("liquid/solid") be included as well? This is in part why I was referring to these 'classifiers' as 'tags' originally. As long as people can easily point to a construction and say "according to this sumti's implied class and that selbri's meaning, this makes no sense," I think that type of judgement should have a clear litmus test. And there's nothing stopping us. With a vocabulary of less than 1500 words, many of which fall into regular sub-classes in the thesaurus, I see no reason why we shouldn't have this resource.
So, to expand the scope here, I'm proposing that each and every sumti position in gismu definitions list explicit tags for baseline sensicality. That is, for bajra:
bajra: x1 runs on surface x2 using limbs x3 with gait x4
Now account for baseline sensicality:
x1 must-be agent...
x2 must-be material...
x3 must-be material, must-be movable-part...
x4 must-be manner...
Now let's envision that these clearly specified 'baseline sensicality tags' for sumti positions are like '
keyhole definitions' that only these explicit classes can fit. Now, each sumti position also gets any number of '
key definitions' for what it can fit into, or what sumti places it can sensically 'fill.'
x1 can-act-as agent, can-act-as moving-thing, can-act-as athlete...
x2 can-act-as general-place, can-act-as surface...
x3 can-act-as body-part...
x4 can-act-as idea...
Now, if we do this for every gismu, I imagine we'd end up with many high-frequency tags like "agent" and "material," and several hundred less frequent tags like "liquid" "body-part." Each of these tags would have a list of sumti positions it requires, and a (probably much larger) list of sumti positions that can "sensically" fit that semantic role.
This data/document would not only provide a richer (many-to-many) series of 'categories' for vocabulary study lists, there are a series of new applications this would allow. You could automatically gauge the degree of 'figurative language' used in a text. You could automatically generate sensical example sentences for given vocabulary (or even generate a
minimal spanning sensible sentence for a set of words). You could even develop a kind of auto-complete function for a lojban-specific text-editor: as you begin to type a sumti in, a list of 'sensical' suggestions could come up in a tooltip window. If we get this data, I'd totally code that!
But I want to make sure I'm understanding the nature of this data set. Please let me know if I'm still making sense, and if I do, I'll come up with technical specs for a web interface to make this data easy to gather and manage. Maybe I'll use this as a way to learn to use github.
co'o mi'e korbi
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:14, John E Clifford <
kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, xorxes has ideas about how Lojban *does* work, and, with minor exceptions,
> he has got it right. So Lojban is his "other" language. Sorry you think this
> discussion is bull-crap; it is trying to work out the ramifications of Lojvan
> being a logical language, dealing with both the logical part and the language
> part, and shooting for reasonable resolution where they appear to conflict.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Lindar <
lindarthebard@yahoo.com>
> To: lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, November 2, 2010 9:55:04 AM
> Subject: [lojban] Re: mi kakne lo bajra
>
> Oren, I answered your question some two or three times.
>
>
> Where x2 of broda asks for {nu} and x1 of brode asks for {nu}, {.i
> broda lo brode} is kosher, because lo brode already -is- an event. For
> all other cases, an abstractor is necessary.
>
> (barring all the other bullcrap/arguments going on right now)
>
> xorxes, since you have all these ideas about how Lojban should work,
> why don't you just make your -own- language and let it stand up to
> Lojban?
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Somerville, MA 02144